The first sentence of Article 15, Paragraph 1, of the Rules Governing Import and Export Goods Inspection prescribes that, “Unless the importer satisfies the burden of proof to show that in the case of over-shipment of goods or the goods landed are different from those declared or are mixed with other undeclared articles, the mistake is due to the fact that there are two or more shipments made by the one and the same shipper who has mistakenly loaded and shipped the goods and such fact is verified to be true by the Customs Office, and the shipments may be consolidated and exempted from administrative sanctions, the importer shall be subject to punishment under the Customs Smuggling Control Act.” Hence, the consolidation and the exemption are available only to the importer who can prove that the mistaken shipments take place due to one and the same consignor who has mis-loaded and mis-shipped two or more batches of goods.　When the mistaken shipments take place due to different consignors who have mis-loaded and mis-shipped two or more batches of goods, the importer shall be subject to the punishment under the Customs Smuggling Control Act.　The foregoing regulation is not in contravention of the constitutional mandate of the principle of equality under Article 7 of the Constitution.

　　　 One who imports goods from abroad shall comply with the Customs Act and relevant rules promulgated thereunder and shall file a declaration with the Customs Office, which shall levy the customs duty in accordance with the Customs Import Tariff. (See Article 4 of the Customs Smuggling Control Act, Article 3, Paragraph 1; Article 4; and Article 16, Paragraph 1, of the Customs Act.)　In order to ensure the importers’ honest declarations of imported goods for thorough implementation of relevant laws and regulations, Article 23, Paragraph 1, of the Customs Act stipulates that the Customs Office has the discretional power, either voluntarily or upon importer’s petition, to conduct an inspection of imported goods or to exempt them from inspection.　Before the Customs Office conducts an inspection or examination, an importer may file a petition for correction pursuant to Article 17, Paragraphs 5 and 6, of the Customs Act when he discovers that the goods actually arrived are inconsistent with his original customs declaration.　However, after the Customs Office conducts an inspection or examination and discovers that there is a false declaration on the name, quantity, or weight of the shipped goods, or there is any act of evasion of customs control or other illegal activities, the importer may be held liable for punishment under Article 37 of the Customs Smuggling Control Act.

　　　 In order to accomplish the goal of preventing evasion of customs duies and at the same time to ensure speedy and convenient customs clearance, the legislative branch may of course authorize the administrative branch to determine on issues of how the Customs Office shall conduct all kinds of inspections and what measures it shall adopt by making reference to the international trade customs, the practices of the Customs Office and the techniques of implementation.　Article 19, Paragraph 2, of the Customs Act, as amended on October 31, 2001（subsequently renumbered and amended as Article 23, Paragraph 2, on May 5, 2004）, authorized the Ministry of Finance to issue rules governing customs inspection the method of sampling for and the time and location of inspection of import and export goods as well as the names and categories of goods exempt from inspection.　Under this statutory authorization, the Ministry of Finance renamed and revised on December 30, 2001 the “Rules Governing Import and Export Goods Inspection and Sampling” as the “Rules Governing Import and Export Goods Inspection”, which sets forth not only matters relating to inspection and exemption from inspection but also prescribes by the first sentence of Article 15, Paragraph 1. that, “Unless the importer satisfies the burden of proof to show that in the case of over-shipment of goods or the goods landed are different from those declared or are mixed with other undeclared articles, the mistake is due to the fact that there are two or more shipments made by the one and the same shipper who has mistakenly loaded and shipped the goods and such fact is verified to be true by the Customs Office, and the shipments may be consolidated and exempted from administrative sanctions, the importer shall be subject to punishment under the Customs Smuggling Control Act.” (hereinafter the “Provision at Issue”)　The “Provision at Issue” with respect to the method and time of inspection is within the scope of the statutory authorization under Article 23, Paragraph 1, of the Customs Act. It clarifies the imposition of punishment under Article 37, Paragraph 1, Sub-paragraph 1, of the Customs Smuggling Control Act in case of false customs declaration and makes it clear that, in the case of inconsistency between the goods actually arrived and the original customs declaration simply due to the reason that one and the same consignor has mis-loaded and mis-shipped two or more batches of goods, the importer may consolidate the mistaken shipments into one case and file a petition for correction without being subject to punishment underArticle 37, Paragraph 1, Sub-paragraph 1, of the Customs Smuggling Control Act because the circumstance does not meet the constituent elements required for imposition of punishment.　

　　　 Article 7 of the Constitution guarantees that all people shall be treated equally under law. It does not mean an absolute and rigid equality in form, but a protection of all people’s equality one in substance under law.　The administrative branch may in the areas of finance, taxation and economics and within the scope of the statutory authorization, promulgates rules and regulation to adopt measures of differential treatments when certain conditions are met.　If its regulatory purpose is legitimate and the means and classification standards employed are reasonably related with the end to be accomplished, the differential treatments will not be viewed as arbitrary and hence are not in contravention of the principle of equality.　In light of the complexity of international trade affairs in customs clearance practice which renders mistakes unavoidable, the competent agency establishes the “Provision at Issue” to exempt the importer who is unaware of the inconsistency between the goods actually arrived and the custom declaration due to one and single foreign consignor who has mistakenly loaded and shipped two or more batches of goods, from administrative sanctions, and to allow such importer to consolidate the mistaken shipments into one case and to file a petition for correction pursuant to Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Customs Act.　Besides ensuring that the importers will declare honestly to the Customs Office the imported goods in order to prevent them from evading customs duties, the “Provision at Issue” is proper in establishing a concrete guideline to make the customs clearance procedure speedy and convenient for importers.

　　　 In importing and exporting practices, it is not only possible that mis-loading and mis-shipment may take place where one and the same overseas consignor ships two or more batches of goods, but also possible that mis-loading and mis-shipment may happen where different consignors ship two or more batches of goods. While it is true that the “Provision at Issue” creates differential treatments of consolidation and exemption for importers in the case of two or more batches of goods mis-loaded and mis-shipped by one consignor or two or more consignors, the mistaken shipments made by two or more consignors can possibly happen only if each individual consignor, the container terminal, the carrier, and all Customs Offices of the exporting countries have failed to discover the mistake.　The reason that the competent agency chooses to adopt the provision of differential treatments is based on its belief that the mis-shipments and inconsistency between goods imported and the goods declared is more likely to take place and much easier and more economical for the Customs Office to inspect and identify when one and single consignor has shipped two or more batches of goods.than different shipments made by two or more consignors, which cases are relatively rare and much more difficult and complicated to identify, and are, if the competent agency relax the restriction on consolidation, likely to create loopholes and confusions for the Customs Office in the smuggling control measures. Based upon its longtime accumulation of experience in customs practices and taking into account the costs and technical difficulties in customs examination procedure, the the decision of the competent agency to adopt provisions of differential treatments is not an arbitrary choice in that the means employed are reasonably related with the end to be accomplished. Accordingly, the “Provision at Issue” is not in contravention of Article 7 of the Constitution and has nothing to do with the restriction on people’s property rights.

　　　 To impose the punishment under Article 37, Paragraph1, of the Customs Smuggling Control Act, it is required that the person punished acts intentionally or negligently (See Article 7, Paragraph 1, of the Administrative Penalty Act)　The “Provision at Issue” does not preclude the prequisite that the person subject to punishment must have acted intentionally or negligently, in the circumstance where there are mistakes of shipments owing to mis-loading and mis-shipment of two or more batches of goods by different consignors.　It goes without saying that the importer should not be held liable to punishment if he/she did not act intentionally or negligently.