A request for mediation concerning excessive shipping cost for return of products purchased through proxy purchasing service 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
A request for mediation concerning excessive shipping cost for return of products purchased through proxy purchasing service
Date
2020-02-27
Hit
806
For two (2) days in May, 2019, the Applicant ordered a piece of cycling sports clothing (KRW 283,750 including shipping cost of KRW 15,000), and a bicycle part (KRW 45,090 including shipping cost of KRW 15,000). Later, the Applicant paid a total of KRW 69,410 as unitary tax because the dates of customs clearance completion for the two (2) products ordered were overlapped. On May △ of the same year, the Applicant received the products. Nonetheless, the Applicant considered the imposition of the unitary tax to be unfair and, on the same day, made return requests for the products. In response to the return request, the Respondent charged the Applicant KRW 67,700 as shipping cost for return.
A. Applicant (consumer)
The Applicant claimed that the unitary tax was imposed on the products ordered by the Applicant because the Respondent did not provide accurate information, so the dates of customs clearance for the two (2) products ordered were overlapped, and that, when the Applicant submitted a return request, the Respondent charged an additional shipping cost of KRW 67,700, which is much higher compared to the initial shipping cost of KRW 30,000. Therefore, the Applicant applied for mediation by the Consumer Dispute Settlement Commission (CDSC) regarding the return shipping charges.
B. Respondent (business operator)
According to the explanation provided by the Respondent, when a consumer orders a product, the seller of the product concerned sends the product to the warehouse of a proxy purchasing service provider - which is the Respondent ― who then delivers it to the consumer. In case the consumer requests a product return, a shipping cost for the return is incurred as the return is carried out by the same process. There is also a detailed explanation on the product that reads, “In case of returns due to change of mind, the refund for the return is processed only after a consumer pays the international shipping cost that has already been incurred when the product concerned was imported.” Likewise, with a simple click of the “Information on Local Shipping Costs for Return“ in the ”Cancellation/Return/Refund“ menu of the Customer Service Center on the Respondent’s homepage, consumers can see the shipping cost of return depending on each country. The initial shipping cost for each product was KRW 15,000; in the case of product return, however, the shipping cost for return is usually higher because the product concerned is supposed to be returned to the seller as quickly as possible, so express shipping service is used. In addition, a product weighing 1.0kg is charged a total shipping cost of KRW 67,700 when its final shipping destination is the US.
1. The following is information concerning the cancellation and return policy posted on the webpage where the products involved in this case were sold:
o Returns due to change of mind
- Refund is processed only upon confirmation that the return shipping cost is already paid, and the returned product is sent back to a business operator’s warehouse.
- In the case of a product for which an import tax (customs duties/value-added tax) is imposed, the import tax is excluded in the amount of refund (import tax to be refunded through the Korea Customs Service).
2. According to the “Information on International Return Shipping Cost” in the FAQ of the Customer Service Center of the Respondent’s homepage, the KRW 67,700 shipping cost for return is indiscriminately charged when the return destination is the US and the returned product weighs 1.0kg.
[Rationale for the decision] Indisputable facts and notification contents provided in the webpage where the products concerned were sold and in the Customer Service Center of the Respondent‘s homepage
Article 13(2)(11) of the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc. stipulates that a mail order distributor shall indicate, advertise, or notify “the terms of transaction that may affect consumers’ purchase decision” in an appropriate manner so that consumers can clearly understand the terms of a transaction of goods, etc., before concluding a contract and signing a deal without any error or discrepancy. Moreover, for returns due to change of mind, the shipping costs for the return of foreign products purchased through a proxy purchase service provider are generally higher than those for domestic products purchased through shopping malls as domestic transactions. Therefore, ”return costs“ can be regarded as one of the important transaction terms that may affect the consumers’ purchase decision.
In addition, the Respondent argued that he/she provided information on return costs through the Customer Service Center of his/her homepage, and that, in case of product return, express shipping service is used for quick return to the seller; hence the higher return shipping cost is charged compared to the standard shipping cost. However, there was no information about the return costs and costs for express shipping services argued above by the Respondent in the Cancellation/Return menu of the webpage where the products concerned were sold. Therefore, the Respondent can hardly be acknowledged to have provided the Applicant sufficiently with information on the important terms of transaction.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to set the return shipping cost that the Applicant should pay at KRW 30,000 as the combined initial shipping costs for the two (2) products involved in this case, which the Applicant could have expected. Likewise, it is only proper that any amount exceeding KRW 30,000 should not be acknowledged as the return shipping cost to be paid by the Applicant.
The Respondent shall charge the Applicant a return shipping cost of no more than KRW 30,000 with regard to the return request of the sports clothing and bicycle part made on May △, 2019.
