Constitutional Court: "Confiscation and Forfeiture of Unreported Exported and Imported Goods Are Constitutional"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision requiring confiscation or seizure of goods or money when exporting or importing items without official declaration does not violate the Constitution.

On the 21st, the Constitutional Court announced that it reached a unanimous decision upholding the constitutionality of the former Customs Act provision that grounds confiscation and seizure for undeclared export-import activities, rejecting claims that it violates the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment.

Article 282, Paragraph 2 of the Customs Act stipulates that goods owned or possessed by the offender must be confiscated if they export or import items without declaration. Paragraph 3 of the same article states that if all or part of the goods cannot be confiscated, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense must be seized.

On this day, the Constitutional Court referred to previous rulings on the same provision from December 2008 and October 2013, judging that there have been no changes in the law, economic order, or other circumstances since then. It further stated, "Even if mandatory confiscation and seizure are stipulated for simple undeclared export-import goods without fraudulent intent or customs evasion, it is difficult to see this as exceeding the legislative discretion."

Regarding the provision that holds corporations responsible when employees commit violations, the court also ruled that "it reflects the legislature's intention to strictly punish corporations that fail to properly supervise their employees," and found it constitutional.

A Constitutional Court official explained, "Following previous precedents, the confiscation and seizure provisions applied to undeclared export-import offenders were judged not to violate the Constitution, and this case is the first to assess the constitutionality of applying mandatory confiscation and seizure provisions to corporations under the Customs Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.