輸入自由化推進과 관련한 合理的인 輸入管理制度 方案樹立 = A Study on the Measures for Import Control System in relation to Import Liberalization

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This essay is aimed at studying the prospects of world trade and subjects of korean trade policies for strategies of export promotion and import liberalization in the international trade environment of 80s. The purpose of this essay is to help Korean government and domestic manufactures to understand the import liberalization of Japan, EC and Taiwan and to assist them in taking the necessary measures for import liberalization in order to cope with influx of imports from developed countries by surveying the effects of import liberalization to domestic industries. This essay analyzes the causes of trade friction between U.S.A. and Japan, EC and Japan, Korea and developed countries, and Korea and developing countries in order to cope with the non-tariff barriers of developed countries and take countermeasure in export trade policy.
Recently the international trade environment has had an unfavorable effect on Korean exports. The developed countries have delayed structual adjustment of uncompetitive industries because of fears of resulting unemployment and have stepped up the errection of various protectionist trade barriers. Particulary, the developed countries have been reinforcing pressure of the NICs, including Korea to open up their domestic market, by applying quota, demanding voluntary export restraints, and by threating to gradually exclude them from the benefit of GSP. At the same time, the growing participation of developing countries, such as China and Thailand, in Korean traditional exports markets has severely intensified competition. These factors have combined to decelerated exports growth.
The developed countries further strengthen their protective moves in 1984, affecting the nation's export promotion drives. In May, 1984 Korea faces import restrictions in one form or another on 167 items (CCCN 8 digit) from 19 countries which are its main trade partners in the world. Notable among the new import restrictive measures are the imposing of an anti-dumping tax on Korean color TV and steel products by the United States. Protectionist moves against free trade met with much opposition. GATT, considered the last bastion to protect free trade, drew only a feeble agreement for reducing tariffs of the world: Multinational Trade Negotiation(MTN) drafted a formula for the removal of non-tariff barriers in 1979, and industrially developed countries began to bolster developing countries with the Generalized System for Preference(GSP). But some Korean exports are often excluded from the GSP beneficiary by applying the "graduation" concept. There is a growing tendency that the developed countries impose anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty instead of unilateral and bilateral quota as import restriction measures. The latest protectionism is for one country to persuade another country "voluntary" limit its exports.
Under the unfavourable international environment, the task of strengthening Korea's industrial competitiveness, through adopting technical innovations, cost reductions, and quality improvements, has become of the most importance. To attain this objective, it is necessary to encourage competition by reducing excess protection, both in the domestic and foreign market, particularly for the increase in competitiveness of the overall economy by more efficient resources allocation resulted from the induced foreign competition through expansion of imports into the uncompetitive industries. To open domestic economy more actively to the external competition, import liberalization is being expedited and an overall reform of the tariff system to eliminate restrictions on competition are being put forward. In order to cope with the increasing non-tariff barriers of developed countries, export strategy place on (1) increasing imports from the countries which is now the excess of export for equilibrium of trade balance between two countries (2) high price of import-restrictive items and exploitation of non-restrictive item and GSP beneficiary items (3) check price system for export prohibition of lower priced exports to cope with the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty of developed countries (4) strengthening of overseas economic diplomatic activities for import liberalization through GATT and MTN (5) making arrangements for countermeasure in advance by collecting the information about import restriction possible items as soon as possible (6) regulating the quantity and price of their exports on a voluntary basis (7) promoting the overseas productions of import-restrictive by establishing offshore plants (8) employing qualified lawyers to deal with matters concerning import restrictions.
The free trade movement of OEEC and USA pressed Japan to adapt import liberalization in the end of 1950s. Japan planned the schedule in advance to minimize the economic impact of import liberalization. Thereafter the schedule for liberalization of Trade and Foreign Exchange was announced June, 1960. The schedule envisions the import liberalization ratio growing from 40% in 1960 to 93% in 1964. Free import items are devided into (1) the items to be liberalized within one year, (2) the items to be liberalized within three years and (3) the items to be liberalized more than three years. Japan's import liberalization ratio was raised from 40% in 1960 to 98.6% in 1982. But Japanese government are imposing Japan's types of indirect non-tariff barriers on foreign goods as supplementary followup actions in order to minimize the adverse effect of import liberalization. The Japan's styles of indirect non-tariff barriers are classified as follows: (1) administrative guidance (2) cumbersome processes of customs clearance and customs administration (3) processes of inspection (4) health and safety rules (5) labelling and certificate of origin requirements (6) government purchases (7) compulsory preferences in bid (8) distribution channel (9) import documents.
The first purpose of abolishing the import quota system in OEEC members was attained in mid-1950s. Thereafter OEEC expanded import liberalization to Dollars areas and non-OEEC members. The import liberalization rates in OEEC members were raised to 99% except France. European Economic Community (EEC) established in 1958, originally including Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The EEC are imposing surveillance system, anti dumping duty and countervailing duty on foreign-made commodities in order to protect their domestic industries and prevent the influx of foreign-made commodities from developing countries including Korea.
Taiwan pushed ahead on import liberalization from 1970, in considering the external and internal environment of balance of payment, foreign exchange position and economic growth rate. The "Measures of Expansion of Trade and Economic Development" for import liberalization were announced in 1970. Taiwan's import liberalization rate was raised from 96.3% in 1974 to 98.6% in 1982. Taiwan's styles of indirect non-tariff barriers are classified as follows: (1) limitation of import qualification (2) limitation of import sources (3) special import licences (4) higher rate of tariff (5) limitation of international bid.
The origin of Korea's import liberalization is the Annual Export-Import Notice announced in 1967 which introduce the negative list system in place of the positive list system.
The significant progress in import liberalization did not occur until the mid-1970s. Imports were to be liberalized in three stages, at the first stage, items enjoying comparative advantages and decisively uncompetitive items were to be liberalized; at the second stage, semewhat uncompetitive but non-durable necessities; and at the third stage, imports of most other items, except strategic industrial goods. In accordance with this new approach, Korea's import liberalization ratio was raised from 52.7% in 1977 to 68.6% in 1978. However the second oil crisis and the ensuing world recession led to a deterioration in Korea's balance of payment position, and further liberalization came to a temporary halt after 1978. These external difficulties were exacerbated by structural economic imbalances at home which highlighted the dangers of opening up the economy too rapidly. As economic conditions improved during 1981-83, the government resumed the import liberlization effort, lifting import restrictions on 366 itemsin 1981, liberalizing imports of additional 167 items in 1982, and followed by 305 items in 1983.
The government in a move to firm up the competitiveness of Korean commodities, announced an ambitious five-year import liberalization plan (1984-88) to open up the domestic market wider to goods from foreign countries. The government expects the domestic market to be as open as those of developed countries by 1988 in terms of import liberalization ratio. It envisions the import liberalization ratio growing from 80.3% in 1983 to 84.7% in 1984, 87.7% in 1985, 91.6% in 1986, 93.8% in 1987, and further to 95.2% in 1988. These gradual import liberalization measures were announced when the Ministry of Commerce and Industry released its Annual Export and Import Notice for 1984 (from July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985). Thereafter other items to be decontroled will be decided under the "prior notice system". The prior notice system, under which the government announced in advance the commodities to be liberalized, is aimed at cushioning any possible market disruptions while giving local industries enough time to adapt to the changing market climate. The gradual import liberalization measure have been worked out in such a way as to increase the international competitiveness of domestic industries through open competition with foreign brands.
Imports of 305 items that were liberalized July 1, 1983 amounted to US＄1,096 million during the 11 months between July 1, 1983 and May 30, 1984. The import increase was paced by eight major items whose total amounted to US＄942.1 million during the period, pu 79.4% from the US＄525.1 million a year ago. The eight products were semiconductors, color TV parts, unloading machines, carbon steel wire and agricultural products. In the meantime the imports of consumption goods, including fruits, beef, garments, furniture, accessories and perfumes dropped 10.8%. Despite the increased imports of some materials, the import liberalization didn't hurt the domestic industries as the increased imports contributed to increasing the country's exports.
Korea's poor natural resource endowment and the lack of capital and technology have resulted in heavy dependence on imports for most raw materials and equipment. As a consequence, rapid export expansion has been accompanied by corresponding increases in imports, putting on the balance of payments. moreover, given the small home market, a sudden over-exposure of domestic industries to foreign competition would result in market disruption to a much greater extend than would be the case in the developed countries. In light of its foreign debt and a growing protectionism trend in the developed countries, Korea can ill-afford to add to its balance of payments deficit.
Nevertheless, despite these external and internal constraints:
First, Korean consumers benefit from lower prices and greater variety.
Second, import liberalization enhances industrial efficiency by exposing domestic producers to greater competition.
Third, a more open import policy is one of the best ways to eliminate supply-side inflationary pressures.
Fourth, the import liberalization measure is largely geared to improve thequality of Korean commodities through competition with high quality foreign goods.
Fifth, Korea's import liberalization policy will lead to better trade relation with the developed countries which impose restrictions on Korean exports.
But the drastic import liberalization measures run a risk of "boomerang" because of a possible rush of foreign commodities into the domestic market. If the inflow of foreign commodities into the domestic market fails to raise the quality of Korean commodities, there is a possibility that the domestic will become uncontrollably confused, only contributing to the deterioration of the country's balance of payment position. There is also criticism that in the case of monopolistic items the government only removed 13 of 90 items from the import embargo list in 1984. The market analyst are worried about the Korean consumer's preference for foreign-made durables such as color TV set and cosmetics. Most small and medium seized firms in Korea will be seriously hurt by a sudden and rapid influx of foreign imports. The possible influx of foreign commodities may threaten some of our infant and vulnerable industries.
Korean manufacturers must be encouraged and helped to face and survive the challenge to foreign commodities by showing better fidelity and quality to serve the interest of domestic consumers and national interest. Limited and conditional restrictions will be necessary to protect and strengthen our industry and market. Toward that end not all free import items should be kept completely free. Part of them will be subject to continued surveillance and tariffs lest they disrupt the domestic market. The supplementary follow-up actions to cope with the negative consequences of liberalized imports should be taken. We should turn it to our benefit by upgrading the quality of domestic products and restraining reckless preference for foreign products on the part of some extravagant consumers. The plan for import liberalization is spurring our renewed efforts for technical innovation, improved quality control and better merchandising to strengthen the Korean economy.
The counter trade has been associated with East-West trade. Now, as a result of the shortage of convertible currencies confronting many developing countries, the pressure for counter trade has been mounting in trade, including Korea. Counter trade accounts for 40% of world trade. Counter trade help narrow the gap between required and available investment funds and tie the free import items to exports. Counter trade not only can be used as a strategy to penetrate markets in other countries untapped previously but fitted into the bilateral ideology with calls for balanced trade on a country-by-country basis. The focus of Korea in promoting its counter trade transaction highly recommends that the current provision relating to counter trade of Korean Trade Transaction Law be revised and included the provisions for counter purchase and product buy-back. A National-level body to deal with counter trade with other countries should be established.
the government provided a safety device in its 1984 Annual Export & Import Notice, making best use of the "import surveillance system" under which the brake could be put on imports whenever the government feels the inflow of imports is excessive. The free import items are devided into full free import items, import surveillance item and import source diversification item. The surveillance system is necessary to prevent the influx of imports and protect the domestic industries from the adverse impact of import liberalization.
The adjustment tariff system, newly introduced will impose the highest legal tariff rate of 100% on free import items which increase too rapidly. Within three years of import liberalization and consequently raise fears of potential injury to domestic industries. The tariff imposed under the adjustment tariff system will be effective for three years or less and the rates will be lowered gradually to ensure that this tariff is not used as a protective tool for indefinite periods. A Tariff Commission has been established to oversee prompt fair implementation of the adjustment tariff system, The government raised tariff rates on 141 items of the 318 products whose imports are expected to be liberalized July 1, 1984. The raise of tariff rates is necessary to prevent the influx of imports and protect domestic industries from the adverse impact of government's import liberalization. In addition to the adjustment tariff system, the emergency duty system has been effectivated.
We should convert the current import administration system dominated by government to import administration system by civilian to escape the blames from foreign countries. The reasonable import administration system for import liberalization should include the following indirect non-tariff barriers as supplementary follow-up actions to protect the domestic industries and prevent the influx of foreign products: (1) administrative guidance (2) cumbersome processes of customs clearance and customs administration (3) processes of inspection (4) health and safety rules (5) labeling and certificate of origin requirements (6) governments purchases (7) compulsory preferences in bid (8) distribution channel (9) import documents (10) limitation of import qualification (11) limitation of import sources (12) special import licence (13) counter trade (14) application of import licence prior to opening an L/C.
We analyzed the effect of import liberalization to the domestic industries by surveying the domestic market share in before and after import liberalization and competitiveness of 109 domestic manufacturers which produce the 43 free import items(CCCN 8 digit). Import liberalization measure contributed to strengthen the competitiveness of demestic products is spite of influx of import of some free import items. In order to attain the import liberalization plan successfully, government, should encourage the manufacturers to upgrade the quality of the domestic products and the consumers to restrain reckless preferences for foreign products.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 第一部 文獻的 硏究
• Ⅰ. 硏究의 槪要
• 1. 硏究의 目的
• 2. 硏究의 範圍 및 內容
• 3. 硏究方法
• 4. 調査硏究期間
• Ⅱ. 80年代 世界貿易의 展開方向과 韓國貿易의 政策課題
• 1. 80年代 世界貿易의 展開方向
• 2. 韓國貿易의 政策課題
• Ⅲ. 先進國間 및 先後進國間의 貿易摩擦과 우리나라의 對應方案
• 1. 貿易摩擦의 背景과 原因
• 2. 美國과 日本間의 貿易摩擦
• 3. EC와 日本間의 貿易摩擦
• 4. 韓國과 先進國間의 貿易摩擦
• 5. 韓國과 新興工業國(NICs)間의 貿易摩擦
• 6. 韓國과 後發開發途上國(中共 등)間의 貿易摩擦
• 7. 貿易摩擦과 우리나라의 對應方案
• Ⅳ. 輸入構造의 推移와 特徵分析
• 1. 우리나라 輸入의 現況 및 特性
• 2. 用途別 輸入構造의 推移
• 3. 地域別 및 主要國別 輸入實績
• 4. 1984年 上半期輸入動向
• Ⅴ. 우리나라 輸入自由化의 推移와 輸入自由化品目의 輸入效果分析
• 1. 우리나라 輸入自由化의 推移
• 2. 78年 輸入自由化品目의 輸入實績 및 輸入誘發效果
• 3. 83年 305個 輸入自由化品目의 輸入實績 및 效果分析
• Ⅵ. 外國의 輸入自由化와 輸入管理制度의 比較分析
• 1. 日 本
• 2. 西歐(EC)
• 3. 自由中國
• Ⅶ. 輸入自由化와 經濟發展
• 1. 經濟發展과 輸入自由化의 相關關係
• 2. 輸入自由化의 隘路要因과 打開策
• 3. 輸入自由化時 고려해야할 政策變數 및 經濟指標
• 4. 輸入自由化가 國內經濟에 미치는 影響
• Ⅷ. 輸入自由化와 輸出入連繫方案
• 1. 輸入自由化와 連繫貿易
• 2. 連繫貿易의 去來形態 및 그 事例
• 3. 連繫貿易推進上의 問題點
• 4. 連繫貿易의 增進方案
• Ⅸ. 輸入自由化를 위한 輸入管理制度의 問題點과 政策的 代案
• 1. 輸入自由化를 위한 現行輸入管理制度
• 2. 輸入自由化를 위한 現行關稅制度
• 3. 國內産業의 輸入自由化範圍와 選定基準
• 4. 輸入自由化를 위한 現行輸入管理制度의 問題點 및 改善方向
• 5. 輸入自由化推進을 위한 合理的인 輸入管理制度
• 第二部 輸入自由化 效果分析 및 合理的 輸入管理制度樹立을 위한 實態調査分析
• Ⅰ. 調査의 槪要
• 1. 調査의 目的
• 2. 調査對象의 構成
• 3. 調査方法
• 4. 調査期間 및 基準時點
• 5. 調査票의 構成
• Ⅱ. 業體別 總括分析
• 1. 價格競爭力現況分析
• 2. 國際競爭力(輸入對抗力) 劣位要因分析
• 3. 輸入自由化措置가 國産品에 미친 效果分析
• 4. 輸入關稅率과 그 調整에 관한 分析
• 5. 國際競爭力(輸入對抗力) 强化方案
• 6. 輸入自由化效果에 대한 意見分析
• 7. 合理的인 輸入管理制度 樹立方案檢討
• 8. 輸入自由化와 輸出入連繫(求償貿易) 方案
• Ⅲ. 品目別 分析
• 1. 纖維製品類
• 2. 製紙類
• 3. 家電製品類
• 4. 化學製品類
• 5. 유리製品類
• 6. 運動用具 및 레저用品類
• 7. 鐵鋼製品類
• 8. 其他 製品類
• Ⅳ. 實態調査에서 記載된 業界의 建議事項
• Summary
• 〔附表 1〕實態調査分析 總括表
• 〔附表 2〕主要 輸入自由化品目의 年度別 輸入實績推移