The Cabinet Office, government of Japan ＞ Top page of OTO ＞ Reorganization of the Office of the Trade and Investment Ombudsman
(Provisional Translation)
Recommendation on Market Access Issues as Concerns Standards, Certification and Others
"7th Report of Market Access Ombudsman Council"
March 18, 2002
Market Access Ombudsman Council
Based on the "Policy Actions on Market Opening Measures as concerns Standards, Certifications and others"(adopted by the Office of Market Access, May 27,1993), and others, this report clarifies where the problems with Japan's standards, certification and others lie and recommends actions needed in this relation to complaints received from foreign businesses and others.
We ask the Office of Market Access to decide on the action that respects this report to the furthest extent possible, and to take measures at an early date.
I. FY2001 Problem Raising Process
II. Recommendations (6 cases)
1. Animals and Plants, Foods
1-(1) Transparency and rationalization of plant quarantine
1-(2) Allowing food testing to be conducted by private sector organizations
1-(3) Utilization of the newly introduced Registered Foreign Certification Organization system (Organic JAS)
2-(1) Setting recycling fees based on the home appliance recycling law
3. Transportation and Traffic
3-(1) Review of the standard concerning domestic transport volume of poisonous and deleterious substance by tank container
4-(1) Review of the rate structure of Air-NACCS
III. Deliberation and Actions Taken on 31 Other Complaints
I. FY2001 Problem Raising Process
Introduction
In order to fully realize the growth potential of the Japanese economy amid people's increasing uneasiness about the future economy and society, it is an urgent task to change various systems that do not meet the needs of the times and to promote structural reform. The government announced the "Structural Reform of the Japanese Economy: Basic Policies for Macroeconomic Management" in June 2001 and has been aggressively promoting structural reform. Structural reform means removing barriers and existing frameworks that hinder reform and revitalizing the Japanese economy through competition by establishing a transparent, fair market. Improvement of market access, in particular, facilitates the flow of men, goods, funds, and information in the ever-integrating world economy and promotes the revitalization of the economy by making the Japanese economy open to the world. The Office of Trade and investment Ombudsman (OTO) is promoting the improvement of market access and realization of structural reform by responding to specific, individual problems.
1. Trend of Problem Raising Process in FY2001
The Market Access Ombudsman Council has been compiling reports to clarify problems concerning Japan's system of standards, certification and others, and making recommendations on the necessary measures since FY1993. The council has recently compiled its 7th report (Problem Raising Process). In the Problem Raising Process, 37 cases were raised. This represented a decrease from the average of 52.5 cases in the past six Problem Raising Processes. However, many of the 37 cases are those that were taken up by the OTO in the past or those that are similar to the cases previously taken up. This suggests that further efforts to improve market access are needed.
By field, problems related to animals and plants, foods came to 10 cases, those related to pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics to 2 cases, those related to manufacturing to 3 cases, those related to transportation and traffic to 2 cases, those related to information and communications to 1 case, those related to import procedures to 16 cases, and others to 1 case. By responsible ministry, the Ministry of Finance came to 13 cases, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to 10 cases, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to 9 cases, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to 5 cases, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to 3 cases, and the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications to 1 case. As in the past reports, the 7th report shows that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries are the major responsible ministries.
Since different ministries or agencies implement regulations for their own administrative purposes, there are many cases where the regulations of many different bodies are intertwined. In the latest report, there are cases where contradictory regulations are implemented, causing confusion and disadvantage to business operators.
In promoting structural reform and regulatory reform, the following points should be specifically pointed out in the problem raising process.
(1) Effect on revitalizing economy
If the improvement of market access facilitates the flow of men, goods, capital and information, revitalizes the economy, and increases imports and investment from abroad, it will create new goods and services in the Japanese market and expand the range of options available to consumers. At the same time, it will correct the high cost structure of the Japanese economy and enhance the efficiency and vitality of the Japanese economy through diversified competition among Japanese and foreign companies, and this in turn will contribute to the creation of job opportunities. In other words, improving market access means establishing internationally attractive business environments and preventing the hollowing out of the economy. On the other hand, if the improvement of market access makes no progress, it will cause a hollowing out of Japanese industry and lower the international status of the Japanese economy. Moreover, if Japan fails to promote information disclosure and establish a transparent, free market, the Japanese market will fall behind other market in the ongoing moves toward globalization.
(2) Necessity of prompt response
The current problem raising process includes many familiar issues from the past that have already been raised. This means, regardless of the past questions that have been raised, that the ongoing problems have not been solved, and the response to the continued calls for the advancement of rapid structural reform has been quite slow. Amid the rapidly progressing globalization and the age of information and technology (IT), the process for market access improvement must be in line with the changes in international environments. Policy response must be prompt and the government should not postpone conclusion on the pretext of it being "under review." The reform process must show the process from implementation of specific measures to evaluation of their effects in a clear time schedule. To this end, the improvement of market access must be firmly positioned in the "Three-Year Program for Promoting Regulatory Reform" and other restructuring measures to be implemented by the government and its progress must be ensured.
(3) Importance of review from the viewpoint of market access when introducing new systems
When designing a new system in response to the computerized, cyclical society, it is important to secure market transparency and competition. This is not to establish a new system as an extension of conventional systems. Rather, it is required to establish a pioneering system in anticipation of reforms from the standpoint of securing the transparency and openness of the market and promoting structural reforms. In introducing a new system, it is desirable that conceivable check points be listed beforehand from the standpoint of market access, such as participation opportunities, participation conditions, participation procedures and the time required for procedures, conditions of information disclosure, international evaluation system, and conformity with evaluation standards and that the new system be implemented after it has cleared the check points.
2. Matters pointed out in the Problem Raising Process
In studying individual, specific reform measures, the importance of the following points were again pointed out in the Problem Raising Process.
(1) Response to computerization and e-government (electronic application, etc.), disclosure of information on charges
For the improvement of market access, realizing e-government is an important problem that we cannot avoid. The government is now aggressively promoting focused, strategic IT measures based on the "e-Japan Intensive Plan" and "e-Japan2002 Program" in order to achieve its objective of becoming the most advanced IT country in the world within five years. The Problem Raising Process points out the importance of computerization from the standpoints of making the economy efficient by reforming the high cost structure and of enhancing the convenience for users. For example, as the internet continues its rapid expansion on the global scale a system should be established to enable the administration to collect information from the people through the Internet and take appropriate measures. The government plans to introduce the Internet so that virtually all application and notification procedures can be made through the Internet by FY2003 at the latest. In doing so, the government should strive to reduce administrative costs with regard to clerical work and further slash user fees.
With regard to export/import-related procedures, when connecting the systems of various ministries and agencies, the government should strive to establish a one-stop service. In order to make user fees reasonable, the government should promote disclosure of information and secure the transparency of user fees. In addition, in order to examine reducing administrative costs and easing the users financial burderns, a study group composed of well-informed persons should be established and from various viewpoints the user fees should be fixed.
(2) Review of special corporations, public corporations, etc.
The businesses of special corporations, etc. should be thoroughly reviewed and businesses that can be handled by the private sector should be transferred to the private sector.
The entry of the private sector into some of the businesses of public corporations, such as inspection, is restricted by regulations, resulting in inefficient services due to a lack of competitive forces. Such businesses should be removed from the regulations and made open to the private sector.
Some business operators have pointed out that public corporations and voluntary organizations treat non-member business operators disadvantageously not by government regulations but by their own rules. The ministry concerned should establish an environment immune to the influence of such organizations.
(3) Ensuring transparency
As was pointed out in the Problem Raising Process in FY2000, the existence of regulation per se, and the lack of transparency where regulation is concerned, often causes problems. In cases where de facto regulation is based on directives or notices that are not laws, working on the basic premise of ensuring transparency, standards should be based as much as possible on laws. When a regulation causes disadvantages to business operators, specific reasons for the regulation should be notified in writing as much as possible.
(4) Clarify when to implement system reform and speedy implementation
In view of the rapid speed of the changing of the times, the government should strive to shorten the time necessary for study and implementation of system reforms to cope with the complaints presented to the OTO and other various problems facing the government and clarify the date of implementation. In the Problem Raising Process, we specified the time for implementation and study as much as possible.
The necessity of establishing certifications and standards and their substance should be reviewed by the ministry concerned from the standpoint of social needs and international harmony. In doing so, study should be made on ways to shorten the time required for system reform, such as incorporating a system to make domestic certifications and standards in line with international standards.
(5) Review of safety-related certifications and standards
As to safety-related certifications and standards, the MAOC has made recommendations for improvements with regard to those certifications and standards whose legal restrictions are not reasonable in view of the progress of technological development or from the standpoint of international standards, or those certifications and standards that have lost rationality under the name of safety. For example, the OTO received just over 10 complaints (total of individual complaints or already raised issues) against the certifications and standards concerning transportation of dangerous substances, but most of them have been disposed of as "recommendations for improvements have been made." It is expected that the number of complaints against certifications and standards that have no established international standards and that need to be scientifically verified will increase in the future rather than complaints against certifications and standards that have international standards and therefore whose safety is relatively ensured. In such a case, as the Problem Raising Process of FY1997 points out, Japan should take a positive stance and compile international standards on its own rather than taking a passive stance and waiting for other countries to come up with international standards.
3. Conclusion
(Importance of follow-up study)
The characteristic of the Problem Raising Process this time is that many of the complaints presented to the OTO were similar to those that were taken up in the past. This shows that responses to the complaints are too slow and are not implemented promptly, despite the fact that structural reform is a problem of vital importance. Moreover, the fact that there were many cases similar to those that had been taken up in the past means it is not enough for the OTO to simply discuss cases and draw a conclusion.
It is important for the MAOC to constantly engage in follow-up study of the situation of complaints disposed of, examine if determined measures are being implemented, and, depending on the situation, call for further measures. To this end, it is also important for the ministry concerned to establish a follow-up study setup in order to check the situation of complaint disposal on a regular basis and implement improvement as needs arise.
In the past 20 years, the OTO has disposed of nearly 1,000 cases, individual complaints and problem raising process combined. The OTO disposed of them one by one after scrupulous examinations. It is important to further promote structural reform by utilizing such accumulation of past experiences.
II. Recommendations (6cases)
1. Animals and Plants, Foods
1-(1) Transparency and rationalization of plant quarantine
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industryry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Background:
(1) Specification of reasons for disinfection orders
Any person who has imported plants should take an inspection (import inspection) by notifying the Plant Protection Station without delay (Article 8). As a result of the import inspection, if there are "quarantine pests," an order to take a disinfection or disposal measure is made depending on the kind of quarantine pest discovered (Article 9).
Under the Plant Protection Law, not all pests are subject to disinfection or disposal. Under an ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, quarantine pests means pests that could damage useful plants and where domestication has not yet been confirmed or partially confirmed through a program to detect the occurrence and other necessary control measures taken by the government.
(2) Improvement of disinfection method
As to the standards for disinfection methods, the Import Plant Quarantine Regulations prescribe various methods such as fumigation in a hydrocyanic acid gas warehouse and fumigation in a methyl bromide warehouse, depending on the kind of quarantine pests.
Of the chemicals used for fumigation, methyl bromide will be abolished in 2005 based on the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, except in the cases where the use of the chemical has been agreed as essential or for quarantine purposes.
(3) Improvement of implementation method of import inspection and disinfection
a. The Japan Plant Quarantine Association performs "quarantine application procedures and all other clerical procedures based on the Plant Protection Law" on consignment from importers.
b. Quarantine and prevention based on the Plant Protection Law shall be conducted by a Plant Quarantine Inspector (Article 3).
A Plant Quarantine Inspector inspects 1] if an imported plant violates Article 6 (if a phytosanitary certificate issued by the government organization of the exporting country is attached), 2] if it is a plant for which importation is prohibited, and 3] if any quarantine pests accompany it. As a result of the inspection, if there are quarantine pests, the Plant Quarantine Inspector disinfects or disposes the plant in question, or issues an order to disinfect the plant in his/her presence. (Article 8, Article 9)
Changes in the number of plant quarantine inspectors in the past three years were as follows:
As of the end of FY2000: 782, as of the end of FY2001: 783, as of the end of FY2002: 798 (estimate).
4. Complaint:
(1) Specification of reason for disinfection order
a. Ensuring specification of reason
Importers are ordered to disinfect imported plants without being notified of specific reasons (the name of quarantine pests accompanying the plants).
On this point, the 3rd Report of the Market Access Ombudsman Council (March 18, 1996) says, "As a result of an inspection of an imported plant, if it is necessary to take measures, such as disinfection, a plant quarantine inspector attaches the reason (including the name of the insect carrying disease germs) to the Import Inspection Application submitted by the importer and notifies the importer or the trustee of the measures (Omitted) . Based on the complaint presented, efforts will be made so that the method for notifying importers of information such as inspection results will be fully informed."
However, the present situation remains the same as in FY1995. Specification of the reason for disinfection orders, etc. is not fully informed.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should without fail specify the reason for disinfection orders, etc. and take necessary measures to prevent unnecessary disinfection.
b. Issuance of "Disinfection (Disposal) Order"
Some importers want to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued in order to prompt the operators of the exporting country to improve their production process or claim damages.
However, in order to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued, an importer has to make a request each time and if the importers wants to receive an order via an intermediary, it takes several days. This constitutes an obstacle when the importer claims damages, etc. against the operator of the exporting country.
Therefore, "Disinfection (Disposal) Orders" should be issued for all cases in question without requiring separate applications.
(2) Improvement of disinfection method
There are said to be as many as 100,000 kinds of insects carrying disease germs. At present, there are 17 different kinds of disinfection methods for plant quarantine, including fumigation by hydrocyanic acid gas or methyl bromide.
However, methyl bromide and hydrocyanic acid gases are chemicals that are said to have adverse effects on human body, substances, and global environment. Consumers have been calling for a disinfecting method that has fewer effects on human body, substances and global environment.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should study and introduce a disinfection method that has fewer effects on the human body, substances and the global environment than the present methods.
(3) Improvement of import inspection and disinfection method
a. Notification of the time (schedule) to start import inspection
With regard to import inspections, the time to start each inspection is not notified to importers and, in some cases, importers are forced to wait for a long period of time.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should indicate the time to start an inspection for each importer beforehand in order to increase the convenience to importers.
b. Exclusion of involvement of the Japan Plant Quarantine Association
At harbors where an office of the Japan Plant Quarantine Association is located, most importers conclude a proxy contract with the association to entrust to it clerical work concerning disinfection, etc.
Meanwhile, there are cases where non-members of the association are virtually unable to have their imports fumigated, as fumigators are reluctant to comply with direct requests for fumigation from non-members for fear of pressures from the association.
Amid the prolonged recession, expenses paid to the association are a financial burden for small and medium-sized enterprises. Moreover, the clerical work done by the association is not commensurate with the expense they pay. Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should exclude the involvement of the association in the implementation of fumigation and establish a system under which fumigation can be done by the involvement of three parties alone - a quarantine office, fumigator, and fumigation applicant.
c. Implementation of all-case, same-day inspection by revising the operations of plant quarantine inspectors
At seaports or airports where imports, mainly of fresh vegetables, have increased sharply, when the imports exceed the inspection capacity of the plant quarantine office of the seaport or airport in question (the average number of inspections in the two busiest months of the past three years), inspection is sometimes conducted not on the same day but on the next day.
However, since postponing inspection of perishables entails a huge economic loss, all perishables should be inspected on the same day.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries cites a lack of plant quarantine inspectors as the reason for next-day inspection. Since a drastic increase in the number of plant quarantine inspectors cannot be expected amid the move toward a slimmer administration, the current operations of plant quarantine inspectors should be drastically reviewed and measures to cope with the increasing volume of imports should be urgently established.
5. Results of deliberation:
(1) Specification of reason for disinfection order
a. Ensuring specification of reason
With regard to specification of the reason for a disinfection order, etc., a similar problem was raised in FY1995 and the Office of Market Access (OMA) decided to have the ministry concerned fully inform the necessity of specifying the reason for a disinfection order, etc.
However, the measure adopted by the ministry concerned on the basis of the OMA decision in FY1995 was simply notifying importers of the reason for disinfection orders, such as names of quarantine pests, verbally, not in writing. In order to receive a notification in writing, an importer has to request the issuance of a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" separately.
Moreover, the "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" form does not have a column to list the specific reasons for a disinfection order, such as the names of quarantine pests. The ministry concerned writes the names of insects carrying disease germs in the column to write the kind of disinfection method.
The ministry concerned admits that a notification of the reason for disinfection order may not be conveyed to the importer, as more than one proxy is involved as intermediaries.
But, if an oral notification is uncertain due to the involvement of more than one intermediary, it makes it all the more necessary to convey the notification not orally but in writing in all cases. The ministry concerned should without fail take necessary measures to convey a notification to importers.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should specify the reason for disinfection order, etc. by 1] establishing a system to issue documents specifying the names, etc. of quarantine pests by promoting computerization and 2] creating a column to specify specific reasons for disinfection order, etc., such as names of quarantine pests, in the "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" form.
b. Issuance of "Disinfection (Disposal) Order"
The ministry concerned contends that there are many importers who do not need to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued every time. However, there are also importers who do need to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued. The ministry concerned should take measures for the benefit of such importers.
Based on the above and for the benefit of those who need to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued, the ministry concerned should introduce a system to register importers who want to have a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" issued each time and to automatically issue a "Disinfection (Disposal) Order" to such importers even without a separate request for the issuance.
(2) Improvement of disinfection method
The ministry concerned maintains that fumigation by methyl bromide is widely used for disinfection of various insects carrying disease germs as it is capable of treating a large amount of plants accurately, easily and promptly and as there is no alternative chemicals. The ministry also maintains that methyl bromide is not a restricted chemical under the Montreal Protocol.
Although the use of methyl bromide is not restricted by the Montreal Protocol, it is advisable to use other alternative methods if possible.
The ministry concerned should strive to develop new technology and establish a disinfection method that is less harmful to plants, etc. or that does not use or uses only a small amount of methyl bromide.
(3) Improvement of import inspection and disinfection method
a. Notification of the time (schedule) to start import inspection
The ministry concerned contends that since an official of a plan quarantine office is unable to understand the placement condition of a container unless he/she goes to the inspection site, it is difficult to set beforehand the time to start inspection for each importer. However, if, for example, the official confirms the placement condition of a container as soon as he/she arrives at the inspection site, it will be possible for the official to notify the importer of a rough time to start inspection.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should study ways to notify a rough time to start inspection for each importer upon request from importers in order to lessen the burden on importers and for their benefits.
b. Exclusion of involvement of the Japan Plant Quarantine Association
The ministry concerned maintains that the Japan Plant Quarantine Association is a voluntary organization composed of importers and that the state is not involved in proxy contracts concluded between an importer and the association as they are totally free economic activities of the private sector. The ministry also maintains that the state cannot involve itself in a private contract between an importer and a fumigator.
However, we believe that preventing an invasion from abroad of quarantine pests that are harmful to plants, etc. is a duty of the state. Establishing an environment to permit smooth disinfection to that end is also a duty of the state.
The ministry concerned should actively study what it can do to establish an environment for smooth disinfection, while giving due consideration to free contracts concluded by private operators.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should strive to fully inform those concerned that it is not necessary to involve the Japan Plant Quarantine Association in fumigation, so that importers wishing to have their imports fumigated without the involvement of the association can do so without any restrictions.
c. Implementation of all-case, same-day inspection by revising operations of plant quarantine inspectors
Since freshness is important for perishable agricultural produce, import inspection should be conducted prompted and should not be postponed until the next day or later.
However, during the time when imports of fresh vegetables increase sharply, import inspections are sometimes not conducted on the same day and postponed until the next day or later.
As a reason for this, the ministry concerned cites the limit in the inspection capacity of plant quarantine offices. However, the situation of import inspection being postponed until the next day or later is not a year-round phenomenon but a phenomenon that occurs only during a certain period of a year when imports of fresh vegetables increase sharply. Therefore, it is necessary for the ministry concerned to adopt a measure to adequately cope with the seasonal increase of imports and to study ways to implement all-case, same-day inspections.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should strive to make operations of plant quarantine inspectors more efficient and study ways to implement all-case, same-day inspection in response to a seasonal fluctuation of import volume by, for example, utilizing private engineers or part-time workers.
1-(2) Allowing food testing to be conducted by private sector organizations
1. Complainant: Nagoya Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Background:
According to Article 15, Paragraph 3 of the Food Sanitation Law, the minister for health, labour and welfare may order foods for which an import declaration has been made to undergo testing at a test laboratory designated by the minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, when local conditions in the product country indicate a risk that the food in question may be in violation of the Food Sanitation Law.
When testing is ordered, expenses for test laboratories designated by the minister must be borne by the importer. The importer is notified of test results via the minister for health, labour and welfare, after which the importer is allowed to import the said food.
In accordance with Article 15, Paragraph 6 of the Food Sanitation Law, the testing fee is not to exceed the amount stipulated by government ordinance (\149,400 per test category), based upon which the testing facility has received permission from the minister for health, labour and welfare. In accordance with Article 19-4 of the Food Sanitation Law, only corporations (public incorporated bodies or foundations) established under Article 34 of the Civil Code may be designated as testing facilities
4. Complaint:
When the quarantine station requests that imported foods be tested, testing must be done at a test laboratory designated by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and only facilities of public incorporated bodies or foundations may be used.
Since private sector companies cannot be designated testing facilities, no competition exists, and users must put up with a low standard of service, for example not being informed beforehand of how much time and money testing will require. Testing fees are also expensive.
Accordingly, testing facilities other than public incorporated bodies or foundations, and including private sector companies, should be eligible to be designated as testing facilities.
With regard to this case, based on the OTO countermeasures headquarters' decision of March 2000, we understand that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is studying testing facilities, with a view to also designating private sector testing facilities as designated facilities under the Food Sanitation Law, and will reach a conclusion on this matter during 2000. How is the study proceeding?
5. Results of deliberation:
The decision of the OMA in March 2001 says that the ministry will study designating private sector testing facilities as designated facilities under the Food Sanitation Law, and will reach a conclusion on this matter during 2000. The ministry has suggested that it will abolish the requirement of being a public corporation. However, as of February 2002, its future direction remains ambiguous and lacks concreteness. By taking measures to allow the entry of private testing organizations as early as possible, the ministry should encourage competition among testing organizations and enhance the quality of testing services, such as through lower testing fees and a shorter testing time.
Based on the above, the ministry should take the following measures with regard to designated testing organizations under the Food Sanitation Law:
The ministry should clarify the specific contents of necessary measures, including the amendment of laws, to designate private sector testing facilities as designated facilities under the Food Sanitation Law. The ministry should submit a bill to amend laws to the current session of the Diet as much as possible and to the next session of the Diet at the latest.
1-(3) Utilization of the newly introduced Registered Foreign Certification Organization system (Organic JAS)
1. Complainant: Domestic operators
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Background:
(1) The Law Concerning Standardization And Proper Labeling Of Agricultural And Forestry Products (Law of 1999 No. 108) stipulates that organic agricultural products and organic agricultural product processed foods that are not affixed with a grading label of the Japanese Agricultural Standard (Organic JAS) shall not be permitted to display the "Organic" mark as of April 1, 2001. (Article 19-10)
(2) In the case of imported agricultural products, the revised law has established a framework in which the grading of organic agricultural products can be done in a foreign country by a foreign producer or production process administrator approved by a Registered Foreign Certification Organization*.
* "In a foreign country that has a grading system similar to the JAS system," a corporation registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as an organization meeting the same requirements as those imposed on a Japanese registered certification organization.
(3) However, no foreign organization has been registered as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization since the labeling restriction of (1) above went into effect on April 1, 2001, and therefore the framework set by the law has not been available.*
* The revised law was enforced on June 10, 2000, and the registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization was possible before the labeling restrictions went into effect on April 1, 2001. However, one year and two months had passed and it was on August 27, 2001, or after this complaint was received, that a foreign organization was registered for the first time since the enforcement of the law. (As of February 22, 2002, five Australian organizations and one Austrian organization have been registered.)
4. Complaint:
Due to the delay in registration as Registered Foreign Certification Organizations, importers suffered damages, as they were unable to import goods affixed with the Organic JAS mark on and after April 2001. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should carry out the following specific steps in order to promote the utilization of the newly introduced Registered Foreign Certification Organization system.
(1) Setting standard disposal period
a. Standard disposal period required for registration as Registered Foreign Certification Organization
Since there is no standard as to the period required from the time after application for registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization to the time of registration, the people wishing to use such organization cannot map out a business plan. Some organizations gave up the idea of making application for fear that the time required for registration might be prolonged.
Meanwhile, the administrative procedure law says that government offices shall set a standard period normally required for disposing an application.
Therefore, based on the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should set a standard disposal period required from the time of application for registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization to the time of registration.
b. Standard disposal period required for certification of producers, etc.
There is no standard either with regard to the period required for a foreign producer to be certified by a Registered Foreign Certification Organization to conduct grading of organic agricultural products, causing a considerable delay for producers and importers to map out and implement a business plan. (The same is true of the certification made by Japanese Registered Certification Organizations.)
Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should encourage each Registered Foreign Certification Organization to set a standard disposal period for certification of foreign producers, etc.
(2) Measures to increase Registered Foreign Certification Organizations
a. Measures to make application easy, such as allowing application in English, etc.
Some organizations have suspended clerical work for application for registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization because they are requested to submit documents and materials necessary for application in English and because they found that translation costs come to a considerable amount.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should adopt specific measures to make registration application easy from the standpoint of increasing the number of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations. For example, the ministry should allow application in English.
b. Relaxation of the requirement of "Countries having a similar system as the JAS system"
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries contends that this requirement is necessary on the ground of "ensuring strict, objective, and fair certification and the necessity of controlling and supervising foreign corporations (registration applicants) through their home governments." But, the control and supervision of foreign corporations for the purpose of "ensuring strict, objective and fair certification" can be made through the International Organic Accreditation Services (IOAS), which the ministry recognizes as an "organization whose reliability has been internationally established."
Registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization should essentially be based on the certifying ability of the organization in question. The foreign corporations registered with the IOAS, which the ministry recognizes as an "organization whose reliability has been internationally established," such as the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA) of the United States, whose registration has been strongly called for by importers, should be allowed to register as Registered Foreign Certification Organizations, even if they are from countries not designated as "countries having a similar system as the JAS system.
5. Results of deliberation:
(1) Setting of standard disposal period
a. Standard disposal period required for registration as Registered Foreign Certification Organization
The ministry concerned has set the standard disposal period stipulated in Article 6 of the Administrative Procedure Law concerning registration of Registered Certification Organization and Registered Foreign Certification Organization (Law of 1993, No. 88) as within three months in No. 10 (standard disposal period) of the "Outline concerning Registration of Registered Certification Organization and Registered Foreign Certification Organization, Renewal of Registration, Approval of Certification Fees and Certification Business Regulations, and Other Supervision," which was partially revised by the General Food Policy Bureau directive No. 2500 dated September 17, 2001.
The ministry concerned, prompted by the complaint in question, has set the standard disposal period concerning registration of new Registered Foreign Certification Organizations as within three months. In actually implementing the decision, the ministry concerned should strive to make paper work efficient and to handle applications promptly.
b. Standard disposal period required for certification of producers, etc.
With regard to a standard disposal period, during which a Registered Certification Organization or a Registered Foreign Certification Organization has to certify a foreign producer, the ministry concerned issued General Food Policy Bureau directive No. 2896 dated October 15, 2001 and told each Registered Certification Organization to strive to set a standard disposal period and make it fully known to applicants.
(2) Measures to increase Registered Foreign Certification Organizations
a. Measures to make application easy, such as allowing application in English, etc.
The system of Registered Foreign Certification Organization was a newly introduced system as a result of law revisions in 1999. The ministry concerned should take positive measures to facilitate the use of the new system.
One of the specific measures to this end is increasing the number of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations by allowing applications for registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization in English and thereby making registration application easy.
On this point, the ministry concerned does not allow application in English as long as it is made to the Japanese government, contending that it is natural to use Japanese, the language of this country (official language).
However, English is a standard language in the world. Moreover, EU nations allow application in English, French, or German as well as in their respective native language.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should study specific measures to make registration as Registered Foreign Certification Organization easy, such as allowing the use of English in the part of the documents necessary for registration application, from the standpoint of increasing the number of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations to facilitate the use of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations by importers
b. Relaxation of the requirement of "Countries having a similar system as the JAS system"
From the standpoint of ensuring strict, objective, and fair certification and the necessity of controlling and supervising foreign corporations to that purpose through their home governments, the ministry concerned contends that in order to be a Registered Foreign Certification Organization, an organization must belong to "a country having a similar system as the JAS system.
For this reason, the OCIA of the U.S. and some other organizations, whose registration has been strongly called for by importers, are unable to be registered as Registered Foreign Certification Organizations because the United States is not designated as "a country having a similar system as the JAS system."
But "ensuring strict, objective, and fair certification" is possible not only by controlling and supervising through home governments but also by controlling and supervising through the IOAS, which the ministry concerned recognizes as an "organization whose reliability has been internationally established." At the least, organizations registered with the IOAS should be allowed to be registered, even if they are organizations of countries not designated as "countries having a similar system as the JAS system."
Registration as a Registered Foreign Certification Organization should essentially be based on the certifying ability of the organization in question, regardless of the system of the country to which the organization in question belongs. The requirement of "countries having a similar system as the JAS system" is only security for proper management of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations and making it an essential requirement is extremely a rigid way of thinking.
In the Building Standards Law, there is a scheme under which a foreign "Approval and Certification Organization" authorized by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport certifies foreign producers of structured members. But, unlike the JAS Law, the Building Standards Law does not require the Approval and Certification Organization to be an organization of a country having a similar system as that of Japan.
Only Australia and EU countries are designated as "countries having a similar system as the JAS System. But, organizations of not only Australia and EU countries, such as Germany and Italy, but also other countries, such as the United States, New Zealand, Israel, Argentine, Bolivia, and Brazil, are registered with the IOAS.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should study revising the JAS Law and take necessary measures to make it possible for importers to utilize as Registered Foreign Certification Organization an organization belonging to a country not designated as a country having a similar system as the JAS System. The ministry should also abolish the requirement of "countries having a similar system as the JAS System," a requirement that the ministry has adopted to ensure proper control and supervision of Registered Foreign Certification Organizations, and in doing so, encourage the use of an organization registered with organizations (such as the IOAS) whose reliability has been internationally established.
2. Manufacturing
2-(1) Setting recycling fees based on the home appliance recycling law
1. Complainant: South Korean Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry: Fair Trade Commission
3. Background:
(1) The Designated Household Appliance Recycling Law (home appliance recycling law) that went into effect on April 1, 2001 stipulates that manufacturers and importers may charge fees (hereinafter to be referred to as "recycling fee") for the activities related to the recycling, etc. of designated household appliance waste products on those who asked to take back such waste. (Article 19)
* "Designated household appliance" refers to 1] air conditioners, 2] cathode-ray tube TVs, 3] refrigerators, and 4] washing machines.
(2) Under the home appliance recycling law, manufacturers can set recycling fees on their own (Article 20) and when a recycling fee set by a manufacturer "markedly exceeds a reasonable cost," the state may recommend or order correction measures." (Article 21)
(3) For example, the refrigerator recycling fees set by manufacturers range from 4,600 yen to 5,600 yen (as of January 22, 2002).
4. Complaint:
The recycling fees for air conditioners, TVs, refrigerators, and washing machines are uniformly set by item. In the case of refrigerators, for example, the recycling fee set by major Japanese home appliance makers is 4,600 yen, regardless of size and manufacturer.
Meanwhile, South Korean home appliance makers produce and sell mainly small, low-priced products. If uniform recycling fees are applied to their products, it means imposing the same amount of recycled-appliance processing costs on South Korean products that are less value-added than Japanese products, necessitating South Korean appliance makers to pass the costs on to consumers. This has eventually led to a weakening of the price competitiveness of South Korean companies.
Moreover, 1] even if a South Korean company wants to set a lower recycling fee for its small refrigerator, for example, the company is virtually unable to set the fee at lower than the processing fees charged by the recycled-appliance processing plants operated jointly by major Japanese appliance manufacturers (hereinafter to be referred to as "joint facility"), as the disposal fees are based on the uniform recycling fees set by major Japanese appliance manufacturers (note), and 2] it is unreasonable to set uniform fees disregarding the conventional wisdom that the cost required for recycling a smaller product should be lower. For the reasons above, the Japanese government should not dismiss the setting of recycling fees in question as a private-level problem. The state (the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) should correct the unreasonableness by establishing a fee-setting standard that takes the size of products into account.
(Note) Since it is difficult for South Korean and other foreign home appliance makers to operate a recycled-appliance processing plant of their own in Japan, they have no choice but to entrust the recycling of used appliances to the joint plant.
With regard to this, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry says that it is difficult intervene in the fee-setting practice, since recycling fees are set by major Japanese home appliance makers independently based on competitive forces. However, 1] The fact that major Japanese home appliance makers set uniform recycling fees for the household appliances in question is tantamount to a kind of collusive pricing practice by taking advantage of market power and runs counter to free competition. 2] A price-setting practice such as this hampers market access for South Korean makers that produce and sell energy-saving small home electric appliances. 3] This, in the end, will raise the selling prices of the home appliances in question and may produce results that are counter to Home Appliance Recycle Law's original purposes of prevention of environmental pollution, energy savings, and environmental improvement.
In short, setting uniform recycling fees regardless of the size of products runs counter to the principle of free competition, deviates from the purposes of the home appliance recycling law, and results in increasing burdens on consumers. The government, therefore, should actively intervene in the situation and provide guidance and correction measures based on Article 21 of the home appliance recycling law.
The Japanese government should provide guidance and correction measures so that Japanese home appliance makers will set different recycling fees depending on the size of the household appliances covered by the law (TVs, refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines) in accordance with their recycling costs.
5. Results of deliberation:
(1) The home appliance recycling system is a new system that went into effect on April 1, 2001 and is still in the "start-up" stage.
The accumulation of data on recycling costs after the law took effect is still insufficient and the costs may fluctuate in the future depending on the diversification of products and corporate efforts.
Recycling fees should properly reflect recycling costs and transparency must be ensured in setting the fees.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should ensure the transparency of recycling costs by publicizing information on reasonable costs and see to it that recycling fees reflect the changes of recycling costs caused by the diversification of products and corporate efforts in the future.
(2) Establishment of a recycling system will create a recycling market and increase new trading opportunities in the recycling market.
However, the complainant contends that the current practice of setting recycling fees is tantamount to "a kind of collusive pricing practice that takes advantage of market power."
If the complainant thinks the practice violates the Anti-Monopoly Law, he should bring the case to the Fair Trade Commission.
The Fair Trade Commission, for its part, should keep a close watch so that competition in the final market and the recycling market will not be restricted by the home appliance makers' practice of jointly determine the specific amounts of recycling fees or by unreasonable restrictions imposed by the establishment of a new recycling system.
3. Transportation and Traffic
3-(1) Review of the standard concerning domestic transport volume of poisonous and deleterious substance by tank container
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry: U.S. Embassy)
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare)
3. Background:)
When transporting inorganic cyanide (limited to liquid) or hydrogen fluoride or their derivatives in a container, the capacity of the container must be 10,000 liters or less (Article 40-2 of the Enforcement Order of the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Law).
When transporting inorganic cyanide (limited to liquid) or hydrogen fluoride or their derivatives in a container, if the capacity of the container is 2,000 liters or more, breakwater plates must be installed inside the container (The same article of the same law).)
4. Complaint:)
(1) Article 40-2 of the Enforcement Order of the Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Law stipulates that when transporting inorganic cyanide (limited to liquid) or hydrogen fluoride or their derivatives in a container, the capacity of the container must be 10,000 liters or less.
On the other hand, since international standards on containers (IMDG CODE, ADR agreement rules, etc.) do not regulate the capacity of containers used in international transportation of poisonous or deleterious substances by tank container, they are often transported in amounts exceeding 10,000 liters. This causes trouble when importing poisonous or deleterious substances to Japan.
Therefore, Japanese standards should be revised so that transportation by tank container will be made possible without any restrictions on their capacity, as in the United States and Europe.)
(2) The same article of the same law stipulates that when transporting inorganic cyanide (limited to liquid) or hydrogen fluoride or their derivatives in a container, if the capacity of the container is 2,000 liters or more, breakwater plates must be installed inside the container.
However, since international standards on containers (IMDG CODE, ADR agreement rules, etc.) say that breakwater plates do not need to be installed when substances fill more than 80% of the container's capacity. This causes trouble when importing poisonous or deleterious substances to Japan in a container not equipped with breakwater plates.
Therefore, the Japanese standards for installation of breakwater plates should be brought into line with international standards.)
5. Results of deliberation:)
Regulations concerning the capacity of containers and breakwater plate installation requirements in transportation of inorganic cyanide or hydrogen fluorine raise domestic transportation costs and hinder their smooth import to Japan. The ministry concerned should complete its investigations designed to modify the standards promptly and revise the Cabinet ordinance so that transportation costs will be reduced.)
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should take the following measures with regard to transportation of poisonous or deleterious substances by tank container.)
(1) The ministry should promptly complete investigations with regard to standards for transportation of poisonous or deleterious substances by tank container, review the standards in order to conform them to international standards, and revise the Cabinet ordinance early in FY2002.)
(2) In revising the Cabinet ordinance, the ministry should study making regulations that will maintain the conformity of domestic standards with international standards in accordance with changes in international standards.
4. Import Procedures
4-(1) Review of the rate structure of Air-NACCS
1. Complainant: American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ)
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Background:
(1) NACCS (Nippon Automated Customs Clearance System) is a system to carry out import and export customs clearance procedures for cargo and related private businesses (distribution of cargoes, etc.) speedily and reliably through a computer network. There are two kinds of NACCS, Sea-NACCS for sea cargo and Air-NACCS for air cargo and they are operated by the NACCS Operations Organization, a corporation authorized by the Ministry of finance.
(2) NACCS connects the NACCS Operations Organization with customs offices, customs brokers, steamship companies, airlines, banks and others, using dedicated lines and terminals. Its operation expenses are paid with user fees collected from customs houses and private users. To use NACCS, users are required to sign a contract with the NACCS Operations Organization and pay user fees set by the NACCS Operations Organization.
(3) A change to the NACCS system is made every eight years. The latest changes to the Sea-NACCS and Air-NACCS systems were made in October 1999 and October 2001, respectively.
4. Complaint:
The change in the fee structure from a flat-rate system to a specific-rate system in connection with the latest change to the Air-NACCS has resulted in increasing expenses for international parcel delivery service operators that handle a large number of small parcels. The NACCS Operations Organization made the latest change to the fee structure by going through only perfunctory formalities and did not provide full explanation and information to the users. Therefore, the fee structure of the Air-NACCS should be reviewed by establishing a neutral organ to conduct careful examinations of the structure from various angles.
Since NACCS fees are set in a way to cover all expenses with the income from fees, it does not provide any incentives to cut costs. Moreover, since a specific company has been in charge of system development and management for a long time, there is no principle of competition at work. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve the efficiency of the operation in order to slash total costs and lower user fees.
NACCS users have no choice but to use NACCS and pay fees set by the NACCS Operations Organization. The NACCS Operations Organization has the responsibility to explain the fees it charges and should promote information disclosure and improve the transparency of the fee structure in order to subject it to constant monitoring by the users.
5. Results of deliberation:
Since the NACCS Operations Organization exclusively operates and manages NACCS and sets user fees in a way to cover all expenses with the fee income, it is not likely to provide any incentives to cut costs. Moreover, system development and management account for most of the total costs and a specific company has been in charge of system development and management for a long time. Based on the present situation, efforts should be made to make operations efficient and reasonable in order to slash total costs in such ways as providing a level playing field.
According to the ministry concerned, the NACCS Operations Organization revised the Air-NAACS fee on the basis of the opinions it solicited from users and those expressed at study meetings. However, as the complainant points out, NACCS Operations Organization's failure to provide explanation and information in a way satisfactory to the users is one of the reasons why the complaint has been filed. The NACCS Operations Organization says it sets fees in a way to bring its budget into balance after every four years and carries out a comprehensive review of the fee structure in the fifth year in a flexible manner in order to bring the structure into line with economic developments. However, in view of the fact that the Organization has accumulated a huge amount of surpluses and reserves, it cannot necessarily be said that the review is carried out flexibly. Moreover, the Organization is open to the charge of being slow in preparations, in view of the fact that it had to take extreme change-relaxation measures expediently for three years in drastically changing the fee structure this time despite of its avowed policy of setting the fees in a way to bring its budget into balance every four years. Therefore, steps should be taken to establish a new way of revising the fee structure, including the establishment of a neutral study group that will review the fee structure from various aspects, including how to slash total costs and how to ask the users to pay costs. In that case, fees should be set at a reasonable level based on actual costs by making them reflect economies of scale. At the same time, in order to facilitate constant surveillance by the users, disclosure of information concerning user fees should be further promoted and their transparency should be improved.
And from the standpoint of enhancing the convenience for the users, it is important to promote one-stop services with regard to export- and import-related procedures, such as NACCS, by connecting and coordinating the systems of each ministry and agency. This is also important in promoting the electronic government administration, such as "e-Japan" programs.
Based on the above, the ministry concerned should take the following measures with regard to the fee structure of NACCS.
(1) With regard to NACCS, information disclosure should be further promoted and the transparency of user fees should be improved. With regard to thorough implementation of competitive bidding for system development and the outsourcing of some operations, the measures that should be promptly implemented starting in FY2002 should be made specific in order to make business operations more efficient and reasonable and further slash user fees.
(2) With regard to NACCS user fees, steps should be taken to establish a new way of revising the fee structure, including the prompt establishment of a neutral study group composed of well-informed persons that will review the fee structure from various aspects, including how to slash total costs and how to ask the users to pay costs. With regard to the Air-NACCS, the user fee structure should be revised by September 2004 at the latest, when the violent change-relaxation measures expire. In doing so, reasonable fee-setting methods should be studied by taking economies of scale into consideration.
III. Deliberation and Actions Taken on 31 Other Complaints
1. Animals and Plants, Foods
1-(1) Concerning fumigation at the time of import of scoured animal hair for use in spinning
1-(2) Reviewing ordered inspection of residual agricultural chemicals
1-(3) Reviewing ordered inspection of imported grilled eels
1-(4) Ensuring uniform measure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on livestock import restriction
1-(5) Improving tie-in system concerning starch
1-(6) Clarifying the inspection standards for overseas production facilities concerning designated quarantine goods (grain straw and forage) based on the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law
1-(7) Japan's policy of listing non-quarantine pests
2. Drugs, Medical Devices and Cosmetics
2-(1) Reviewing regulations concerning labeling of cosmetics
2-(2) Easing regulations on displaying ingredients of cosmetics
3. Manufacturing
3-(1) Easing inspection record keeping requirements established in line with the revision of the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law
3-(2) Easing regulations on formaldehyde contained in infants' underwear
4. Transportation and Traffic
4-(1) Simplifying documents attached to application for permit to run tall containers
5. Construction
5-(1) Accepting exporting country's test data in application for JAS Standard grade for structural glued laminated lumber
5-(2) Promoting importation of foreign-made wooden fire-proof doors
6. Information and Communications
6-(1) Simplifying technical standard conformity certification inspection, etc. concerning radio equipment for imported computers
7. Import Procedures
7-(1) Simplifying procedures for tariff and consumption tax refund due to return of imported goods
7-(2) Reviewing customs tariff classification of coffee-maker jugs
7-(3) Making laws to revise Customs Law and other laws well known before their enforcement
7-(4) Simplifying and rationalizing import quota application procedures for laver
7-(5) Making import tariffs on automobile carpets reasonable
7-(6) Extending the office hours of customs
7-(7) Partially abolishing import quotas on marine products and simplifying and rationalizing application procedures for import quota
7-(8) Proving information on import cargo via the Internet
7-(9) Standardizing the notice and forms concerning documents to be submitted for application for importing OEM goods
7-(10) Promoting 24-hour operations of harbor loading and unloading
7-(11) Flexibly applying import declarations concerning chips
7-(12) Concerning simplifying and speeding the submission of necessary documents in importing medical equipment
7-(13) Lifting restricted conditions of importers in simplified declaration system
7-(14) Improving simplified declaration system
7-(15) Introducing import declaration procedures by JETRAS
8. Others
8-(1) International harmonization of verification testing methods for mutable obiogenesis of glutalaldehyde
1. Animals and Plants, Foods
1-(1) Concerning fumigation at the time of import of scoured animal hair for use in spinning
1. Complainant: Nagoya Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
(1) Any person who wishes to import designated quarantine goods (animals, carcasses, or bones, meat, eggs, skins, hair, etc. that are designated by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) shall attach an inspection certificate issued by the competent government agency of the exporting country certifying the goods in question are free from any causative agent that may spread infectious diseases affecting domestic animals and undergo import inspection (if any causative agent of an infectious disease in domestic animals exists) to confirm their safety. (Articles 37 and 40 of the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law). Should the Animal Quarantine Officer determine that the goods inspected might spread causative agents of infectious diseases in domestic animals, the said goods shall be incinerated, disinfected, or otherwise treated as appropriate. (Article 46)
Among the designated quarantine goods that are designated by Article 45 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law are clove-hoofed animals, horses, chickens, dogs, rabbits, and their skins and hair.
As to disinfection method, Attachment No. 1 of the same enforcement regulations prescribes formalin disinfection in the case of hair, etc.
(2) The Animal Quarantine Service that covers Nagoya Port and Nagoya Airport conducts disinfection based on the above import inspection and quarantine inspection as follows:
In the case of importing scoured wool or scoured goat hair, fumigation is not required in most of the case even if they are dirty and regardless of their exporting countries.
On the other hand, in the case of importing scoured rabbit hair, scoured and dehaired cashmere hair, scoured and dehaired camel hair, etc., fumigation by formalin water is required even if they are attached with a hygienic certificate issued by the competent government agency of the U.K., Germany, France, Switzerland, or other advanced European countries, such as an Official Veterinary Certificate issued by the competent government agency of Germany to certify that the imported goods in question meet the standards set by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE).
(3) In order to ask the Animal Quarantine Service covering Nagoya Port and Nagoya Airport to obviate fumigation on scoured rabbit hair, etc., the complainant, in compliance with the request from the Service, submitted documents concerning scouring process and detergents used, and explained that the cleanliness of scoured rabbit hair, etc. is in no way inferior to that of scoured wool, etc. However, the complainant is still unable to import scoured rabbit hair without fumigation.
When the complainant made the above explanation, an animal quarantine officer of the said Service went so far as to say that "as long as (the officer) is in office, no import permit for the animal hair that has not been imported to Japan before will be issued without fumigation."
(4) Response of the Animal Quarantine Service such as 3 above are unreasonable for the following reasons: 1] Scoured rabbit hair, etc. from the above European countries are completely germ-free as they are repeatedly dried at high temperatures during their production process. 2] Their hygienic conditions are certified by the government organizations of the European countries that are believed to have similar inspection standards and level. 3] The Cabinet ordinance based on the Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful Substances (Law of 1973, Nov. 112) prohibits the use of formalin treated raw materials in infant underwear, etc. Formalin is a substance harmful to the human body and its use should be strictly restricted.
(5) Therefore, with regard to scoured rabbit hair, etc., the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 1] should accept results of the inspection conducted by the government agencies of the European countries as they are, except in the case where there was a possibility of the goods in question having being contaminated during transportation, and take necessary measures to obviate fumigation and 2] should specify concrete standards for import inspection and, when fumigation is required, specify the reason, and explain to importers clearly and in detail as to what they should do if they want to import similar goods without fumigation in the future.
Moreover, 3] the expenses for the import inspection and fumigation of the goods in question are fixed regardless of import volume. Since expenses should differ depending on the volume, expenses for importing a small amount of goods, such as samples, should be set at a lower level.
(Second complaint)
(1) We wish to repeat our complaint. Since scoured rabbit hair, etc. imported from the European countries is produced in the same scouring process as scoured wool, which is treated as not requiring disinfection, there is no reasonable grounds to treat scoured rabbit hair, etc. separately from scoured wool, etc. and require disinfection only on the former.
We have already submitted documents concerning the scouring process and others, in compliance with the instruction from an official of the Animal Quarantine Service, and made explanation of them. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should immediately take measures to obviate the necessity of disinfecting scoured rabbit hair, etc.
(2) The response from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries failed to indicate a specific schedule and specific measures to be taken in the future. It appears that only expressions have been changed.
Moreover, in this case, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries failed to show on what specific ground it determined scoured rabbit hair, etc. are inferior to scoured wool, etc. in terms of reduction of pathogenic organisms and decided to require disinfection.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should clarify a specific schedule, specific measures to take, and the specific reason why it required disinfection in this case.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) With regard to accepting results of the inspection conducted by the government agencies of the European countries as they are, except in the case where there was a possibility of scoured rabbit hair, etc. having being contaminated during transportation:
1) Import inspection of animal hairs, including rabbit hair, is conducted based on the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law to confirm that they are free from any causative agent that may spread infectious diseases affecting domestic animals, and to determine if an inspection certificate issued by a reliable government agency of an exporting country is violated and if any causative agent of a domestic animal infectious disease stipulated in the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law or a reportable disease (hereinafter to be genetically called "surveillance disease") exists. The ministry accepts the inspection certificate and the substance of the certificate issued by European countries.
2) The ministry conducts disinfection to prevent the entry of surveillance diseases into Japan when it finds, as a result of inspection, that animal hair was produced, shipped, or went through a problem area in terms of domestic animal hygiene, such as an area where a surveillance disease broke out, and when it believes that animal hair may have been polluted with a causative agent of a surveillance disease while being process, packed, or transported. From the standpoint of domestic animal quarantine, the disinfection cannot be abolished.
3) However, when it is confirmed by an export inspection certificate or a written explanation submitted by importers that causative agents of surveillance diseases in animal hair have been killed during treatment process, the ministry does not take disinfection measures, such as fumigation.
4) The ministry conducted disinfection because the documents submitted at the time of import application were not sufficient for the ministry to believe that the processing treatment in the case in question was sufficient to kill causative agents of surveillance diseases. From now on, the ministry will keep in close touch with importers, obtain necessary information, such as treatment process, and promptly decide whether to conduct disinfection or not.
(2) With regard to specifying concrete standards for import inspection and, when fumigation is required, specifying the reason, and explaining to importers clearly and politely what they should do if they want to import similar goods without fumigation in the future:
1) Concrete standards for the implementation of disinfection are specified in "Concerning imported livestock disinfection standard" (a notice issued by director of the Animal Quarantine Service on July 29, 1981). In implementing fumigation in the future, the ministry will keep in close touch with importers and strive to take clear and appropriate measures.
2) The ministry has been conducting disinfection in conformity with the disinfection standards set by the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law. As to a disinfection method for animal hair, formalin gas fumigation is considered to be the most appropriate method. At present, there is no alternative disinfection method that can take the place of formalin gas fumigation.
(3) With regard to the expenses for the import inspection and fumigation of the goods in question being fixed regardless of import volume. And with regard to setting expenses for importing a small amount of goods, such as samples, at a lower level, since expenses should differ depending on the volume:
1) Expense for import inspection
Expenses for inspection of animal quarantine is not required.
2) Expense for disinfection
Based on the results of import inspection, the owner of the goods is supposed to conduct disinfection in accordance with instructions of an animal quarantine officer.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) With regard to animal hairs, the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law requires import inspection and Article 45 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law designate animal hairs, such as cows, pigs, horses, sheep, goats and rabbits, as designated quarantine goods.
(2) In order to prevent the entry into Japan of causative agents of surveillance diseases from the areas where a surveillance disease may have broken out, disinfection is carried out based on "Concerning imported livestock disinfection standard" (a notice issued by director of the Animal Quarantine Service on July 29, 1981. Hereinafter to be called "disinfection standards").
(3) The ministry conducted disinfection because the documents submitted at the time of import application were not sufficient for the ministry to believe that the processing treatment in the case in question was sufficient to kill the causative agents of surveillance diseases. However, we have studied the materials submitted so far in consultation with experts and found that they are effective in deactivating the causative agent targeted by the disinfection of rabbit hair.
(4) For the reason above, the ministry will not require disinfection of rabbit hair in the future, if it is confirmed from an export inspection certificate, etc. that the processing treatment in question has been conducted.
(5) The complainant also referred to animal hair other than rabbit hair. However, the ministry has not required disinfection, such as fumigation, when it is confirmed from an inspection certificate or written explanation submitted by importers than causative agents of surveillance diseases can be inactivated by the processing treatment. The ministry will keep in close touch with importers and strive to take accurate and prompt measures.
5. Remarks
The specific substances of the corresponding policy are now being confirmed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
1-(2) Reviewing ordered inspection of residual agricultural chemicals
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
When importing asparagus from China, an ordered inspection concerning the residual concentration of dichlorvos, an agricultural chemical, is required under the "Concerning implementation of ordered inspection based on Article 15-3 of the Food Sanitation Law" (Notice issued by the head of the Inspection and Safety Division, Food Safety Dept., Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau). When we referred the matter to the Chinese agency concerned, it replied that the above agricultural chemical is no longer used in asparagus.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare should grasp the actual situation in foreign countries and abolish unnecessary ordered inspections by taking necessary measures, including deleting the good in question from the above notice.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
With regard to Chinese green asparagus (excluding those processed), an ordered inspection has been implemented since September 4, 1998, as dichlorvos was detected in the amount exceeding the standard (0.1ppm) in 1998. The current fiscal year is the third year since the ordered inspection was first implemented. There was no case of violation during the three years. Therefore, the ministry will study deleting the good from the notice when it reviews ordered inspection items at the end of the current fiscal year.
However, unripe peas produced in China (excluding those processed) will not be deleted from the ordered inspection goods, as cypermethrin was detected in the amount exceeding the standard (0.05ppm) even this fiscal year.
Incidentally, cases of violation discovered at quarantine stations are published in the homepage of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
(Reference)
1)Dichlorvos: Organic phosphorus insecticide. Intake of dichlorvos in excess of the standard may cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, or spoil appetite.
2)Cypermethrin: Synthetic pyrethroid insecticide registered in 1987. It has an extremely wide spectrum of killing insects. Intake in excess of the standard may cause headaches, nausea, etc.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
1-(3) Reviewing ordered inspection of imported grilled eels
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
>2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
When importing grilled eels from a foreign country, it is necessary to undergo a prescribed food inspection. The inspection is either ordered inspection or self-inspection depending on whether the eel in question is heated or not immediately before it is frozen. In the case of ordered inspection, under the "Concerning implementation of ordered inspection based on Article 15-3 of the Food Sanitation Law" (Notice issued by the head of the Inspection and Safety Division, Food Safety Dept., Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau), the importer is required to submit an ordered inspection application to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare after confirming the number, etc. of the eel brought into a bonded shed and obtain an inspection implementation permit before actually implementing the inspection. It takes 2~3 days, or 4~5 days when a weekend is involved, before implementing a 24-hour inspection. Since there is no difference in substance between the ordered inspection and the conventional integrated self-inspection concerning grilled eel, self-inspection is as effective as ordered inspection. Ordered inspection that wastes time should be abolished and processed eels imported from China should be deleted from the Attachment 1 of the above notice. If it is impossible, please certify the necessity of ordered inspection.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Ordered inspection based on Article 15-3 of the Food Sanitation Law is necessary in order to prevent harm to food sanitation, as there is a high probability of importing goods that may violate the law due to the situation of a producing country. In order to ensure the reliability and impartiality, the inspection is to be carried out by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare or an inspection agency designated by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare. The ministry does not accept the results of self-inspection.
The ministry cannot remove Chinese frozen eel grilled with or without sauce from the list of ordered inspection items, as cases of violation of the Food Sanitation Law are reported every year. But, if the government of an exporting country can guarantee safety as a result of sanitary measures implemented, then the ministry may exempt inspection based on an inspection order, upon consultation.
(Reference)
Recent case of violation with regard to Chinese frozen, grilled eel
Violation of element standard: Coliform bacteria detected. Live bacteria exceeding 100,000 per gram
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy
1-(4) Ensuring uniform measure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on livestock import restriction
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
In the light of frequent cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Europe, 1] the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, based on the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law, suspended for the time being import of beef, etc. shipped from affected areas on and after January 1, 2001. Meanwhile, 2] the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, based on the Food Sanitation Law, virtually rejected import of beef, etc. shipped in December 2000. Later, the ministry revised the Food Sanitation Law.
Since the measures taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare were different and the revised Food Sanitation Law was applied retroactively, importers and overseas operators were through into confusion and they suffered a huge loss.
If a similar problem occurs in the future, we want the ministries concerned to coordinate their view so that they will not take different measures. In addition, since a law revision has a far-reaching impact on importers and others, we would like the revised law not to be applied retroactively.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(1) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries conducts import quarantine based on the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law from the standpoint of preventing the entry into Japan of infectious diseases affecting livestock via animals or livestock imported from a foreign country.
(2) In light of the frequent cases of BSE in EU countries in 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries took measures to suspend import from EU countries of beef, cow viscera and their process products, and processed animal protein (meat powder, bone powder, etc.) from January 2001 and of sheep and goat meat, their viscera and processed products from March 2001 in order to securely prevent the entry of BSE into Japan. (The quarantine measures for meat and bone powder, etc. were revised in October 2001, following the outbreak of BSE in Japan.)
(3) These measures were taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries from the standpoint of domestic animal quarantine on the basis the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law and do not necessarily conform with the measures taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare from the standpoint of preventing harm on public health on the basis of the Food Sanitation Law. However, the ministry intends to further increase cooperation and coordination with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in order to minimize confusion among importers.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, taking the outbreak of BSE into consideration, issued a notice to the heads of quarantine stations on December 22, 2000, asking them to lead businesses concerned not to import beef, etc. from EU countries effective the same day. The ministry revised the Enforcement Regulations of the Food Sanitation Law (ministerial ordinance) on February 15, 2001 and legally prohibited the import of meat, viscera and meat products originated from animals or livestock that have or may have been affected by BSE. Since cow that may have been affected by infectious spongiform encephalopathy may be processed, the ministry, based on the same law, prohibited the import of beef of the cow slaughtered, dismembered, cut, or sliced in EU countries.
The above measures were taken from the standpoint of ensuring the safety of imported beef and protecting people's health. Since it was necessary to take preventive measures promptly for public health, we don't think it was a matter for which interim measures should be adopted.
Since the revised Enforcement Regulations of the Food Sanitation Law that was promulgated and enforced on February 15 prohibits the import of beef, etc. that may have been affected by BSE from the same day onward, including beef for which import procedures were under way on February 15, it does not constitute retroactive application of the law.
The measures taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare from the standpoint of preventing harm on public health on the basis of the Food Sanitation Law do not necessarily conform with the measures taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries from the standpoint of domestic animal quarantine on the basis the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law. However, the ministry intends to further increase cooperation and coordination with other ministries and agencies concerned in order to minimize confusion among importers.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
1-(5) Improving tie-in system concerning starch
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
Due to the government policy of tying in corn-starch corn with domestic potato starch, we are compelled to use relatively expensive corn starch.
This system is difficult to understand for importers and consumers. Its legal grounds, framework and specific employment policy are uncertain and vague.
Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should explain the legal grounds and specific employment policy of the system to importers. To be more specific, the ministry should tie in domestic potato starch not only with corn-starch corn but also with all imported corn, including corn for feed and industrial use.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
The system of tying in corn-starch corn and domestic potato starch is designed to provide low-priced imports users on one hand and to secure demand for domestic potato starch and stabilize income of domestic potato starch producers by stabilizing starch supply and demand on the other. It allots duty-free corn-starch corn to users on condition that they take delivery of domestic potato starch. (If a user pays a certain amount of duty (50% or 12 yen per kilogram, whichever is higher), he is not obliged to take delivery of domestic potato starch and can import corn-starch corn freely.)
The tariff allocations for corn-starch corn are set based on the Customs Tariff Law (Article 9-2), the Temporary Tariff Measures Law (Article 8-6), and the Cabinet Ordinance concerning Tariff Allocation System, and the purchase amounts of domestic potato starch are based on the Ministerial Ordinance concerning Tariff Allocation System for Corn, etc. (Article 6). They are published in the gazette of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, JETROdaily, and the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Under this system, the ministry is striving to lower the production cost of domestic potato starch through integration and rationalization of domestic potato starch plants, while giving due consideration to users and consumers who bear the costs of supporting domestic corn starch prices. The ministry will continue to strive for proper operation of the system, while keeping a close watch on the trend of starch supply-demand on the domestic market.
The ministry believes that it is not appropriate to include imported corn for feed or industrial use (corn grits, corn flour, etc.) in the tie-in system because they are not used for starch.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
1-(6) Clarifying the inspection standards for overseas production facilities concerning designated quarantine goods (grain straw and forage) based on the Domestic Animal Infectious Diseases Control Law
1. Complainant: Chinese Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
China has been exporting gain straw and forage (hereinafter to be called "feed straw, etc.") to Japan.
Following the outbreak of food-and-mouth disease in Japan in March 2000, the Domestic Animal Infectious Disease Control Law (Law of 1951 No. 166) was revised at an extraordinary session of the Diet in the autumn of the same year, and feed straw, etc. was included in a list of goods that can be designated as a designated quarantine good by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
As a result, it is required to attach an inspection certificate issued by the competent government agency of the exporting country in order to import feed straw, etc. to Japan, the production facility of the feed straw, etc. has to pass the inspections conducted by the Japanese and Chinese governments in order to have an inspection certificate issued.
In the inspections conducted by the Japanese side in February and March 2001, several companies were disqualified. However, 1] it is difficult to take corrective measures, as the Japanese inspection standards are unclear and vague, and 2] it is difficult to make request for reexamination, as the inspection system and procedures are vague.
Therefore, we would like the competent ministry to 1] clarify the standards concerning the inspection in question in order to make it easy to take corrective measures, and 2] clarify and speed up procedures for reexamination and send inspectors to China immediately to implement reexaminations.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Clarification of the inspection standards for disinfection facilities for grain straw and forage
The basic structure of the designation (inspection) standards for disinfection facilities for the gain straw and forage (hereinafter to be called "feed straw, etc.") designated by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries are prescribed in the domestic animal hygiene condition arrangements concluded with China. Since each disinfection facility has different location and structure conditions, the ministry decides whether or not to give designation to a facility based on the designation (inspection) standards prescribed in the domestic animal hygiene condition arrangements after confirming the facility in question is capable of implementing appropriate disinfection treatment on straw and forage and of preventing straw and forage from being contaminated again after disinfection. Therefore, it is difficult to make he designation (inspection) standards prescribed in the domestic animal hygiene condition arrangements clearer.
(2) Procedures for reexamination
As to facilities that were not finally designated as a result of an on-cite inspection, the ministry, if necessary, points out the inadequate items. If the inadequate items are improved, the ministry asks the Chinese government to submit documents related to the improvement and if the ministry judges from the documents that improvement has been made, it will again conduct an on-site inspection.
In late August, the Chinese government submitted documents concerning conditions of the facilities improved. The ministry is now preparing a response to the Chinese government and plans to send the response shortly.
The ministry is also preparing an itinerary for on-cite inspection. After adjustment of the itinerary with the Chinese side, the ministry intends to dispatch domestic animal experts for on-cite inspection as early as possible.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
1-(7) Japan's policy of listing non-quarantine pests
1. Complainant: New Zealand Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
(1) Under Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries designated "quarantine pests" as those that could damage useful plants where 1] domestic existence has not yet been confirmed or 2] part of its existence has already been confirmed by a program to detect the occurrence and other measures necessary for control taken by the government.
(2) On this point, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries contends as follows: 1] Japan is a major importer of plants. If Japan has to list quarantine pests, it has to list more than 100,000 kinds of harmful pests. Moreover, it is difficult to list unknown harmful animals and plants. On the other hand, it is necessary to prevent the entry into Japan of unknown harmful animals and plants as their safety has yet to be confirmed. 2] In New Zealand, where quarantine pests are listed, when an application for import of a new kind of agricultural produce is made, approval is not granted until PRA (pest risk assessment) of harmful animals and plants contained in the agricultural produce in question is finished. It is not appropriate to argue the issue by taking up the difference in listing method alone. Rather, the issue should be argued from the standpoint of taking the best measure for each country to prevent the entry of harmful animals and plants.
(3) However, as a result of listing the above non-quarantine pests, those pests that would not be subject to quarantine if quarantine pests were listed are subject to quarantine, including 1] pests whose existence in Japan has already been confirmed but a program to detect the occurrence and other measures necessary for control have not been taken, and 2] pests that are not designated as quarantine pests under the standard set by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Specifically, they are Asynonychus cervinus (Boheman), Tetranychus urticae (Koch), Heliothripshaemorrhoidalis (Bouche), Tuckerellaflabellifera (Miller), Hemiberlesialataniae (Singnoret), Tyrophagusputrescontiae (Schrank), and Limothripscerealum (Haliday). These seven pests should not be subject to quarantine in Japan. But, due to the existence of the above list, they are required to be quarantined.
Among major agriculture-produce-importing countries, Japan is the only one that requires quarantine by making a list of non-quarantine pests, a practice not in line with international standards. Moreover, the issue in question is a problem not only for New Zealand but also for other countries exporting agriculture produce to Japan.
(4) Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should discontinue its policy of listing non-quarantine pests and subjecting all other animals and plants to quarantine and instead adopt a policy of "listing quarantine pests" in order to bring it more into line with international standards. Meantime, the ministry should take measures to exempt quarantine on the seven pests.
(Second complaint)
(1) In its Corresponding Policy (1), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries says that the New Zealand side is incorrect when it says, "all animals and plants other than the 63 kinds listed as non-quarantine pests are subject to quarantine." New Zealand agrees with the ministry's claim that "those that do not harm plants are not subject to import plant quarantine." But, what we are concerned about are those that may do harm to plants but are not designated as quarantine pests in Japan. This is because they have already occurred in Japan but are not defined as quarantine pests by the FAO. Therefore, we again request that Japan make a list of "only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan."
(2) In its Corresponding Policy (2), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries asserts that "Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they failed to pass the inspection)." But, this underlies the point of our argument. What we are arguing is that the Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan.
(3) In its Corresponding Policy (3), the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries did not respond to our request made in the complaint 2) dated June 29, 2001 that "in view of the recent adoption of the standard definition of 'official control' by the ICPM, we hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will bring Japan's plant quarantine policy into line with international practice." We want to confirm that Japan will adopt and introduce the new definition of "official control" that was internationally agreed to in May of last year.
(4) The Corresponding policies of the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries do not respond to our complaints (made in the Complaint (3) dated June 29, 2001 and Complaint (1) dated July 12, 2000) about Japan's list of non-quarantine pests that Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations does not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law to issue a ministerial ordinance designating "harmful animals and plants." The fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, in its Corresponding Policy 1, recognized that there are animals and plants that do harm and that do not do harm among the animals and plants that are not included in the list of 63 kinds of non-quarantine pests proves that the current Japanese system listing only 63 kinds of non-harmful animals and plants does not meet the legal requirement of designating "harmful animals and plants." Therefore, we request that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries designate "harmful animals and plants" as is stipulated in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law.
(5) With regard to the Corresponding Policy (4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, New Zealand requested more than one year ago (January 2001) that the ministry clarify the quarantine status of the seven harmful animals or plants as a temporary measure before a fundamental change of policy. To our regret, we have not received a response from the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. However, we welcome the reports that the ministry is studying how to deal with the seven pests. We would like the ministry to respond to our question of whether the seven pests exist in Japan or not.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) New Zealand claims that "with regard to quarantine pests, Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations lists 63 non-quarantine pests and subjects all other animals and plants to quarantine." This claim is not correct. Under the Japanese plant quarantine system, only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan are subject to quarantine. Those that do not harm plants are not subject to import plant quarantine.
(2) Regarding the argument of the New Zealand side that a list of quarantine pests should be drawn up, rather than using a list of non-quarantine pests, we are of the view that the listing method differs since the import quarantine schemes of Japan and New Zealand are different. In other words, we understand that importing new agricultural produce is basically prohibited in New Zealand. When an application for import of a new kind of agricultural produce is made, a decision on import quarantine measures is not made (the import prohibition remains) until PRA (pest risk assessment) of pests contained in the agricultural produce in question is finished. New Zealand ensures the quarantine safety by this system, under which it adds the pests that are deemed harmful as a result of PRA to the list of quarantine pests and prohibits the import of the pests whose PRA is not finished. On the other hand, Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they fail to pass the inspection).
(3) Regarding the argument of the New Zealand side that Japan should prepare a "list of quarantine pests," we are of the view that Japan has adopted the current system because expressing that quarantine pests are those harmful animals or plants not listed in the non-quarantine pests is more effective in preventing the entry and stay in Japan of more than 100,000 kinds of harmful pests, including unknown pests that may cause serious damage to domestic agriculture. Therefore, each country, based on its situation, should adopt the most effective measure to prevent the entry of quarantine pests. It is not appropriate to argue the issue by taking up the difference in listing method alone.
Incidentally, international standards do not prescribe the listing method. New Zealand is incorrect when it says that the Japanese method of making a "list of quarantine pests" runs counter to internationally prescribed methods.
(4) As to expanding the list of non-quarantine pests, the ministry intends to add harmful animals and plants that are not harmful to domestic agricultural production to the list of quarantine pests and implement plant quarantine in accordance with the degree of peril of harmful animals and plants by accelerating pest risk assessment. The ministry is now studying how to deal with the seven pests that the New Zealand side argues should not be subject to quarantine. We think it is necessary to study the matter carefully because the seven pests include those that have not occurred in Japan.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) With regard to New Zealand's re-complaint
1) We believe that New Zealand has consented to the Japanese policy of not subjecting pests that do not harm plants to import quarantine.
2) As to New Zealand's claim that "only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan should be subject to quarantine. We again request that Japan make a list of such harmful animals and plants," we believe this is a repetition of the same argument. On this point, New Zealand made similar requests in different words in its re-complaint (2) and re-complaint (4). only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan." We have already explained this point in our previous corresponding policy (2) and (4). We want to explain again in the following "Concerning (2)" and "Concerning (4)."
(2) Concerning New Zealand's re-complaint
1) With regard to New Zealand's argument that "Japan underlies the point of our argument when it said that 'Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they failed to pass the inspection),'" we would like to explain as follows.
The Japanese system that designates a list of non-quarantine pest is a realistic measure conforming to the Japanese import quarantine system and the actual situation of agricultural import. We are of the view that the listing method differs since the import quarantine schemes of Japan and New Zealand are different. Under the Japanese system, all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they fail to pass the inspection). Under this system, Japan imports large quantities of various kinds of plants from around the world. Meanwhile, it is said that there are as many as 100,000 kinds of pests in the world. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to make a list of quarantine pests under the current import inspection system. If we were to make a list of quarantine pests by adding to the list one group of pests after another, we would be unable to quarantine a large majority of undecided pests (pests that are yet to be listed as quarantine pests) during the course of list making. This would mean that we cannot implement plant quarantine properly to prevent the entry and spread of pests into Japan. For this reason, making a list of quarantine pests is not realistic for Japan and we cannot adopt it as a system. However, if the import of new agricultural produce is basically prohibited as in New Zealand, a quarantine-pest listing method would be effective because it is possible to implement investigation and assessment of pests country by country upon receipt of an import application and to start (lift) import inspection by attaching conditions based on the results of the investigation and assessment. However, under the current situation in Japan, to which large quantities of agricultural produce are imported, it is impossible to adopt the kind of listing method adopted in New Zealand. Therefore, Japan has adopted a method of investigating the importance, degree of damage, prevention situation, etc. of the pests that have occurred in Japan and are not subject to the government's program to detect the occurrence and other prevention measures, and of adding those pests that do not cause damage to domestic agricultural production to the list of non-quarantine pests. Japan has adopted this method because it is a realistic method that does not hinder the objective of plant quarantine and does not cause trouble to the actual import situation.
2) With regard to New Zealand's argument that "the Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan," we would like to explain as follows.
The Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan.
The pests that are subject to fumigation and disinfection in import quarantine in Japan are the "quarantine pests" described above. Since these pests cause serious damage to domestic agricultural production in Japan, implementing disinfection effectively to prevent the entry and spread of quarantine pests is scientifically justified and indispensable. We hope that New Zealand will understand that the Japanese people never approve importing agricultural produce containing quarantine pests without disinfection.
3) Concerning re-complaint
With regard to New Zealand's complaint that "We want to confirm that Japan will adopt and introduce the new definition of 'official control' that was internationally agreed to in May last year," we will explain as follows.
We believe that the international standard of "official control" that was adopted by the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) of the IPPC in April last year should offer one of the bases when we consider an ideal plant quarantine system in the future. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that Japan is the largest importer of farm products in the world and that there is a high risk of pests contained in large quantities of farm products entering into Japan. For example, under the guidance of the central government, we have been making strenuous efforts to control pests that are covered by programs to detect the occurrence. If we fail to control large quantities of pests contained in farm products imported from foreign countries, our efforts on domestic agricultural production will be wasted. We believe that it is necessary to take these aspects into account when we study an ideal plant quarantine system and official control.
(4) Concerning re-complaint
In the re-complaint, New Zealand argues that "the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations does not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law to issue a ministerial ordinance designating 'harmful animals and plants'" and that "the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries recognized that there are animals and plants that do harm and that do not do harm among the animals and plants that are not included in the list of 63 kinds of non-quarantine pests proves that the current Japanese system listing only 63 kinds of non-harmful animals and plants does not meet the legal requirement of designating "harmful animals and plants." On these points, we would like to explain as follows.
Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations based on Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law says that quarantine pests are "harmful animals or harmful plants that are not listed below," and it lists 63 non-quarantine pests. We have already explained in detail in the 2 above why Japan has adopted a method of designating non-quarantine pests. The legal and ministerial regulations concerning quarantine pests are based on the legislative deliberations and procedures (Diet deliberation, inspection by the Cabinet Legislative Bureau, examination by scholars, public hearings, etc.) that were required when the Plant Protection Law and the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations were revised (1996). Therefore, we do not think they do not meet legal requirements.
(5) Concerning re-complaint
As to New Zealand's "request for clarification of the quarantine status of the seven harmful animals or plants," the ministry is now studying how to deal with them. We have not yet reached a conclusion. We think it is necessary to study the matter carefully because the seven pests include those that have not occurred in Japan. We are not able to disclose the content of the study. As soon as the study is completed, we will notify it to the competent New Zealand plant quarantine agency via the New Zealand Embassy in the same manner as in the past.
5. Remarks
The complainant is now examining the matter.
2. Drugs, Medical Devices and Cosmetics
2-(1) Reviewing regulations concerning labeling of cosmetics
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
With regard to labeling cosmetics, Article 61 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law stipulates that "cosmetics shall be labeled to indicate the following matters on the immediate container or package." The imported cosmetic soap handled by the complainant is packed in unit of 3 or 4 pieces. The manufacturer considers 3~4 pieces of the cosmetic soap as one merchandise. When the manufacturer consulted a pharmaceutical affairs office about labeling 3~4 pieces of soap as one merchandise about five years ago, the office confirmed there was no problem. However, the pharmaceutical affairs office recently notified that the container referred to in the law is not the cellophane but the box inside. Amending the labeling means a huge financial burden because it involves a problem of trademark rights and introduction of machines.
Please approve our practice of considering one pack as one piece of merchandise and labeling the outer cellophane as the immediate container as is generally recognized in other countries, on condition that we print a notice urging retailers not to sell the soap piece by piece.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
From the standpoint of protection of consumers, Article 61 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law prescribes that the matters such as "manufacturer's name and address," "manufacturer number," and "ingredients' names" shall be labeled on "the immediate container or package" of each product, to help consumers obtain necessary information and contact the manufacturer as needs arise as well as to prevent confusion with similar products.
"The immediate container or package" means a container (cosmetic bottle, box, etc.) or a package (cosmetics wrapping paper, etc.) in which cosmetics are directly contained. If "the outer cellophane is recognized as the immediate package by specifying that the product will not be sold piece by piece" as the complainant requests, the legally required labeling will be made only on the outer cellophane and not on the various cosmetics inside.
This labeling method may allow consumers to confirm the labeled matters at the time of purchase, but once they start using the cosmetics, the outer cellophane on which legally required matters are labeled will be discarded, leaving only boxed cosmetics on which there is no labelling.
Therefore, consumers will not be able to obtain information on the proper use of the cosmetics that are not used immediately after the its package was opened. This may lead the consumers to confuse the cosmetics and similar products and in some cases may cause health problems (skin disorder, such as allergic diseases, alopecia, etc.).
Therefore, from the standpoint of ensuring the security of consumers, labeling should be made on each immediate package and we cannot recognize the outer cellophane as the immediate package, even if it specifically says that the cosmetics will not be sold piece by piece.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
2-(2) Easing regulations on displaying ingredients of cosmetics
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
With regard to labeling cosmetics, Article 61 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law As a result of deregulation of cosmetics in and after April 2001, the Enforcement Regulations of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law was partially revised, increasing the number of ingredients that can be used in cosmetics and allowing the importation of previously prohibited ingredients of preservatives, such as "1,3-dimethylol-5, 5-imethyl hydantoin," "N, N"-methylenebis," and "N'-(3-hydroxymethyl-2, 5-dioxo-4-imidazoline) urea," although the amount of their use is restricted. However, the revised law stipulates that products that contain above ingredients shall be labeled with instruction to the effect of "Please refrain using the product to persons sensitive to allergy and infants."
Labeling the instruction on products may make consumers uneasy about the safety of the products and injure the reputation of the sellers. In the United States and other foreign countries, these ingredients have long been used without such an instruction.
Therefore, we want the requirement of labeling the instruction to be deleted from the regulations.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
We have approved the use of formalin-type preservatives as an ingredient of cosmetics on condition that an instruction, "Persons sensitive to formaldehyde and infants are advised to refrain from using," is labeled on the product. Our step is designed to isolate the skin-reactive, allergy-causing formaldehyde (a prohibited ingredient) and is based on the result of deliberation of scientific data by the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council.
If new scientific knowledge becomes available, we will carefully study whether to revise the labeling regulation in question, in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
3. Manufacturing
3-(1) Easing inspection record keeping requirements established in line with the revision of the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
3. Complaint:
As a result of the revision of the Electrical Appliance and Material Control Law in April 2001 (enforcement of the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law), an importer of electrical appliances must "implement shipping inspection and preserve the record of the shipping inspection" (Article 8-2) in place of "foreign manufacturer" as was required in the previous law.
Moreover, when the "shipping inspection" is done not by the importer but by the foreign manufacturer at a foreign factory, the importer must obtain shipping inspection records from the foreign manufacturer and preserve them. Although we are allowed to preserve inspection records in unit of lots, it involves extremely cumbersome work. Therefore, we would like the work to be simplified.
It is now possible for Japanese importers to read and copy the data stored in computers of foreign manufacturers. Therefore, in the case where inspection records held by the foreign manufacturer can be displayed immediately in Japan by the importer, we want the competent ministry to take measures to obviate the need for importers to keep inspection records. For example, a provision to the effect that "In the case where inspection records preserved by a foreign manufacturer can be displayed immediately in Japan by an importer, the inspection records may be regarded as being preserved by the importer" should be added to Article 12 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Electrical Appliance and Material Control Law that prescribes electromagnetic methods of preserving inspection records, or we should be allowed to interpret the Article as such.
>4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
With regard to inspection record, Article 8-1 of the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law stipulates that importers "shall be obligated to conform to technical standards" and Article 8-2 of the same Law stipulates that importers "shall be obligated to conduct inspection of electrical appliances, prepare inspection records, and preserve the records."
Of the obligations of importers prescribed in 8-2 of the Law, "conducting inspection and preparing inspection records" can be entrusted to other establishment (including foreign manufacturers). But, even in this case, the inspection records must be confirmed by the importer before the products are distributed, as Article 8-1 of the Law prescribes that the importer is obligated to confirm that the products conform to technical standards by confirming the inspection records in question.
Since it is necessary that the technical records once confirmed should be kept in a state readily available to the ministry to examine the possibility of the expansion of danger or trouble in the event of an accident of the product already distributed into the market, they should normally be kept at the office of the importer. But in the case where the inspection records are preserved in an electromagnetic method, it would suffice if it were ensured that the records could be displayed immediately by using a computer owned by the importer.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
3-(2) Easing regulations on formaldehyde contained in infants' underwear
1. Complainant: Canadian Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
Under the Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful Substances (Article 4-1), the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare is authorized to designate home products from the point of view of public health and sanitation and prescribe necessary standards with regard to the maximum quantity, elusion and dispersion of harmful substances in home products. The Enforcement Regulations of the Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful Substances regulates the maximum quantity of formaldehyde, a harmful substance, permitted to be contained in 11 of the textile products for infants of less than 24 months old, including diapers (Attachment 1 of the same Enforcement Regulations). The Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare is also authorized to dispatch home product sanitation watchers to factories and stores for on-site inspection and order the withdrawal of home products if necessary (Article 7 of the same law).
The complainant is an importer of infant underwear from Canada. The importer had imported underwear undergo product tests at an appointed inspection facility and obtained a certificate proving that the products in question meet the above standards. However, a retail shop was ordered to withdraw the products on the ground that a more-than-allowable amount of formaldehyde was detected as a result of an on-site inspection by a home product sanitation watcher. The retail shop in question claimed damages against the importer.
(1) The Japanese standard for the content of formaldehyde with respect to textile products for infants is that it should not be detected in such products. A large majority of the foreign countries do not have such regulations. Even if regulations are in place, they are much more relaxed than the Japanese regulations. For instance, in the Netherlands, the standard for the content of formaldehyde in baby clothes is less than 120ppm before washing in the case of no labeling that says, "Wash before use," or less than 120ppm after one washing. (See WTO Notice G/TBT/Notif.99.515, dated October 13, 1999) Moreover, since formaldehyde is soluble in water, it can be washed away if the product is washed.
Therefore, 1] The competent ministry should relax the standard by consulting standards in other countries. And 2] The ministry should present scientific grounds justifying the maximum permissible amount set by regulations. 3] The ministry should also present data concerning diseases caused by the minimum allowable amount of formaldehyde contained in baby clothes.
(2) When exporting products to Japan, we take good care of the products so that they meet standards. They passed product tests conducted by an appointed inspection facility at the time of importation, showing that they meet Japanese standards. However, we were forced to recall the products from retailers across the country on the ground that a more-than-allowable amount of formaldehyde was detected as a result of on-site inspection at a certain area. This may have been caused by the fact that formaldehyde exists in nature. The formaldehyde contained in the products was within the maximum permissible limit at the time when they were imported, but the products may have absorbed (migrated) formaldehyde due to poor management during storage, resulting in detection of a more-than-allowable amount of formaldehyde in on-site inspections of the retail shops.
Therefore, we would like the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to explain 1] why the result of the test conducted by an appointed inspection agency at the time of importation differs from the result of the on-site inspection of retail shops conducted by the public health center, 2] why the testing method is divided into one for those less than 24 months and one for those over 24 months and why the methods are different, and 3] why the certificate issued by the appointed inspection agency at the time of importation is not effective. 4] We also want the ministry to apply the law flexibly. For example, even if more than an allowable amount of formaldehyde is detected in a product as a result of an on-site inspection of a retail shop, the ministry should approve the sale of the products in question after the cause of the contamination is clarified as a result of investigation of product management condition in the warehouse and after voluntary re-examinations of the remaining products are conducted and no problems are found, instead of issuing an order for across-the-board withdrawal of the products.
(3) Since around November 2000, we have undergone on-site inspection by a public health center almost once a month. Since this appeared to be more than the average number of inspections, we asked the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the public health center to present information concerning the products inspected. However, they replied that they do not have the custody of appropriate records.
Therefore, we want the ministry to show us data proving that on-site inspection is conducted impartially for any product of any country.
(Second complaint)
Regarding (1)
In the response, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare says that the current standard for absorbance difference at "less than 0.05" is equivalent to "less than 15~20ppm." But this conversion seems to be arbitrary. For example, the Japan Textile Products Quality and Technology Center (QTEC) says in a report issued on September 26, 2001, that the absorbance difference of 0.05 is equivalent to less 15ppm. Based on this, it can be said that the Japanese standard (less than 15ppm) is far stricter than in other countries, where the standard is set at less than 30ppm.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare says the Japanese testing method seems to have caused a misunderstanding that it is zero restriction. Actually, it is widely believed that the Japanese method is zero restriction. As can be seen from the materials proclaimed to be a guideline, local governments and the ministries and agencies concerned also seem to view the Japanese method in the same way. Therefore, we want the ministry to confirm that it is not zero restriction
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare says that the Japanese regulation is based on the results of "experiments on animals." We want the ministry to give us detailed and specific explanations of scientific data, investigation and analysis methods, and, in particular, how 0.05ppm has come to be adopted as the standard.
With regard to our request for easing the standard, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare demands reliable data. On the contrary, we want to ask the ministry if it has any reports showing that a maximum permissible standard of 30ppm has caused trouble in Japan or other countries.
Regarding (2)
As is clear from the results of experiments conducted voluntarily, the migration of formaldehyde that exists in the air cannot be avoided even under normal environmental conditions. The lack of means to distinguish migration in the testing method has made fair implementation of the regulation difficult.
The ministry says that since a product test conducted at the time of importation is a means of voluntary quality control on the part of the companies, test results are not legally binding. If so, why, in the case of some trouble, are importers asked by the public health center to submit the certificate issued by the inspection agency at the time of importation? Why, when they are not in possession of the import certificate, are they forced to submit a written apology to the public health center on the ground of inadequate management?
Although the state is responsible for the regulation, the actual implementation of the regulation has been shifted to local governments (regional public health centers). This has resulted in inconsistency in the implementation of the regulation. We think the regulation is still vague, inconsistent with the internationally accepted standard without any legitimate reason for being so, and implemented arbitrarily. Manufacturers and importers are making strenuous efforts to conform to the Japanese standard in such ways as promoting "zero formaldehyde campaigns" at factories. We think that the root cause of the problem is not the ways manufacturers or importers handle the matter, but the regulation itself.
In order to help product providers conform to the Japanese standard, we propose the following:
1] Japan should establish a standard that is in line with the internationally accepted standard in order to make it possible to conduct tests in a reliable way.
2] In order to ensure fair, impartial implementation of the regulation, officials of public health centers should be provided with the necessary training or the implementation of the regulation should be brought back under the control of the state.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Regarding (1)
With regard to the permissible amount of formaldehyde in infant textile products, the Japanese standard requires that the absorbance difference as measured by the acethylaceton method be less than 0.05. This value, according to data accumulated through experiments, is equivalent to less than about 15~20ppm of formaldehyde content in samples. Although the regulation varies from one country to another, we don't think the Japanese standard is particularly strict as compared with those in Finland and Norway, where the comparable value is set at 30ppm. However, as to the testing method, which seems to have caused a misunderstanding that it is zero restriction, the ministry is considering indicating the standard in ppm as in other countries. The ministry is also studying revising the standard with a view to scientifically distinguishing migration (contamination of a product as a result of adhesion of a chemical substance in existence around the product) from resin-processed products (some products produce formaldehyde) and dealing with them separately.
The Japanese standard in question has been established from the standpoint of protecting, in particular, infants, who have little resistance to chemical substances, from being exposed to the substances through skin or inhalation, as experiments on animals show that formaldehyde has chronic toxicity and sensitivity even at a low concentration of several ppm.
The regulation is designed to protect infants, who have little resistance, from being exposed to formaldehyde by preventing the sale of products that do not conform to the standard. Although no particular disease has been reported under the current standard, we think it is important to ensure the safety of infants and prevent health hazard by maintaining the idea that led to the establishment of the current standard. If there are reliable data showing that the safety of infants can be ensured even when the formaldehyde concentration is higher than the amount restricted under the current standard, we will not rule out the possibility of reviewing the regulation.
Regarding (2)
Although the absorbance difference of most of the samples that are judged "not detected" by the acethylaceton method is from 0 to around 0.01, there are samples whose absorbance difference is only slightly below the 0.05 standard. This suggests that it is inevitable that the concentration of formaldehyde differs slightly among samples. Therefore, some samples in the same lot of "not detected" samples may contain formaldehyde exceeding the limit set by the standard. Although we do not have data for each case, the difference in test results pointed out by the complainant may be due to the unevenness in concentration.
As to the testing method, we have adopted a method based on absorbance difference, which is suitable for detecting elution of a relatively small amount of formaldehyde. This is because we have set the standard for the formaldehyde concentration in textile goods for infants aged 24 months or younger at a higher level than for adult wear from the standpoint of protecting infants who have little resistance to chemical substances.
Since the Law regulates only goods that are on sale, we regard a product test conducted at the time of importation, or before goods are put on sale, as a means of voluntary quality control on the part of the companies and test results are not legally binding.
As to administrative guidance by public health centers, etc. on withdrawal of merchandise, we have been implementing the guidance flexibly. For example, since formaldehyde concentration may exceed the limit set by the standard not due to the quality of the product but due to migration during custody, when a product purchased on a trial basis at a retail shop is found to have a formaldehyde concentration exceeding the standard, we purchase similar the product at other shops and check them in order to examine if the excessive concentration of formaldehyde is caused by the product itself.
Regarding (3)
The actual implementation of the trial purchase test and administrative guidance is basically entrusted to local government. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare sets regulation standards, testing method, etc.
As to results of the trial purchase test, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare receives only reports on the number of inspections conducted and does not have data on individual products by country.
In the last fiscal year, 5,744 cases were inspected and formaldehyde exceeding the standard was found in 71 (1.24%) of the cases. The ministry has received reports on the violation cases, including the exporting countries involved, and the reports can be made available.
(Second corresponding policy)
Regarding re-complaint (1)
As we have said in our previous response, with regard to the permissible amount of formaldehyde in infant textile products, the Japanese standard requires that the absorbance difference as measured by the acethylaceton method be less than 0.05. This value is equivalent to 12-18ppm of formaldehyde content in samples, according to data accumulated through experiments we have been conducting since last year as part of the preparations for the revision of the testing method. As we have said in the previous response, although the regulation varies from one country to another, we don't think the Japanese standard is particularly strict as compared with those in Finland and Norway, where the comparable value is set at 30ppm.
Rather, we think the problem lies, as was pointed out, in the facts that the Japanese method is widely believed to be designed for zero restriction and that it is difficult to scientifically distinguish migration (contamination of a product as a result of adhesion of a chemical substance in existence around the product) from resin-processed products (some products produce formaldehyde). Therefore, as we have said in the previous response, the ministry is now considering indicating the standard in ppm and revising the standard with a view to scientifically distinguishing migration from other incidents caused by formaldehyde-producing products and dealing with them separately.
The complainant demands that the ministry present more scientific data concerning the standard. But we believe that it is common knowledge among toxicologists that formaldehyde has chronic toxicity and that even just several ppm of formaldehyde may cause allergic reaction to an adult with a normal, healthy body. Moreover, the animal experiments that we conducted before the adoption of the standard show that formaldehyde has sensitivity even in a low concentration of several ppm. So, from the standpoint of protecting, in particular, infants, who have little resistance to chemical substances, from being exposed to formaldehyde through the skin, we have adopted the absorbance difference of 0.05 as the standard as it enables us to detect the elution of a relatively small amount of formaldehyde.
As we have said in our previous response, though no particular disease has been reported under the current standard, the regulation is designed to protect infants, who have little resistance, from being exposed to formaldehyde by preventing the sale of products that do not conform to the standard and it is important in order to ensure the safety of infants and prevent health hazard. However, if there are reliable data showing that the safety of infants can be ensured even when the formaldehyde concentration is higher than the amount restricted under the current standard, we will not rule out the possibility of reviewing the regulation.
Regarding re-complaint (2)
The public health center requests for submission of inspection results (certificates, etc. issued by the inspection agency) in the case of a violation of the standard in order to investigate the cause of the violation. It doesn't matter whether the voluntary inspection is implemented by manufacturers/importers or an outside inspection agency. However, since it is construed as a failure to confirm the safety of the product if one sells the product without implementing an inspection or with the knowledge that the product has been found to be in violation of the standard in a voluntary inspection, the public health center requests the submission of a written apology as part of administrative guidance.
As we have said in our previous response, regulations on formaldehyde vary from one country to another, but we don't think the Japanese standard is particularly strict as compared with those in other countries. We are aware of the problem that migration cannot be scientifically determined and therefore we are studying developing and introducing an improved testing method. As to the employment of the law by each local government, we have issued notices clarifying the guidelines on supervision and guidance. The law is not employed arbitrarily.
As to an improved testing method, we will make it known as soon as it is established.
5. Remarks
The complainant is now examining the matter.
4. Transportation and Traffic
4-(1) Simplifying documents attached to application for permit to carry tall containers
1. Complainant: Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
3. Complaint:
Every time we carry a so-called high cube container, we have to apply for a permit for each vehicle to travel roads by attaching a map of the travel route (route map) based on Article 47-2 of the Road Law.
However, in Japan, the roads on which a vehicle carrying a high cube container can travel have already been specified. Moreover, roads are not frequently specified as such. (Even if they are, the information can be easily obtained at the office responsible for the road administration.) Therefore, the documents necessary for the application in question should be reviewed and simplified in such a way to obviate the need to attach a route map.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Vehicles carrying a high cube container for sea-transportation can travel the prescribed roads if it has obtained a right-of-way permit for special motor vehicle. When applying for a permit, a route map has to be attached to the application, which the road administrator checks along with a travel table in screening the application.
With regard to the omission of a route map in applying for right-of-way permit for special motor vehicle carrying a high cube container for sea-transportation, the ministry will study the matter comprehensively by taking into accounts the nature of the procedures for designated route, the actual situation of control by the road administrator, and measures ensuring the observance of the right-of-way permit.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
5. Construction
5-(1) Accepting exporting country's test data in application for JAS Standard grade for structural glued laminated lumber
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
An importer wishing to apply for JAS Standard grading for foreign-made structural glued laminated lumber is required to convert the performance table, product characteristics, etc. based on exporting country's standards into ones based on JAS standards. (Japan Agricultural Standard on glued laminated lumber)
Although the JAS system on glued laminated lumber is a voluntary system, whether a product is graded by JAS standard or not has a far-reaching effect on sales of the product on the Japanese market. Therefore, imported goods are in effect required to be in conformity with the JAS standard.
Recently, we tried to import glued laminated lumber from New Zealand by converting New Zealand standards (NZS3603, etc.) into the JAS standard but were unable to do so. Due to the differences in unit, testing method, etc. we were unable to convert the performance, product characteristics, etc. based on the New Zealand standard into ones based on the JAS standard. As a result, we were unable to make application and had to give up on importing the lumber.
If the Japanese registered grading organization had accepted the test results (performance value, characteristics, etc.) conducted by a registered grading organization of the exporting country (without changing the unit, etc.) as application materials, instead of requiring the importer to convert the exporting country's standard into the JAS standard, we would have been able to import the lumber smoothly.
Therefore, we want the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to take the necessary measures so that the registered grading organization accepts test results conducted in the exporting country (without changing the unit, etc.) as application materials.
We also want the ministry to explain why New Zealand is not recognized as a country having a system equivalent to the JAS system and to tell us how it is going to deal with the matter in the future.
* < Response to *1 from the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry >
(1) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries says in its inquiry to the complainant that "we do not allow such a grading system as accepting the data based on the standard of a foreign country as the data for JAS standard grading... With regard to JAS standard grading of foreign products other than those produced by certified manufacturers, the following two methods are available:1] Grading by a registered grading organization after the product is imported,2] Grading by a registered grading organization (or a registered foreign grading organization) in the exporting country before the product is imported."
As we stated before, we have to judge at the initial stage whether a foreign lumber can be used or not. In doing so, we need to make an initial judgement as to which category of JAS grades the lumber falls under. As the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries does not allow grading based on overseas data, which we need for the initial judgement, we tried to convert the overseas data into JAS standard, but to no avail.
(2) As to the method 1], we think it is a grading method for the materials that are imported with confidence that their performance will conform to the JAS standard.
(3) As to the method 2], since we do not have enough time to import the lumber after acquiring a grade in the exporting country, it is important for us to make an initial judgement as to whether the performance of the lumber is satisfactory or not. The time when we acquire a grade will overlap with the time when the product is being manufactured and transported.
(Second complaint)
(1) With regard to "initial judgement," isn't is possible for a government agency to give in general terms what category of JAS grades the product in question fall under, rather than having the plant do the grading or asking a testing organization to do the grading?
The point is the problem of the unit change. It would not be a heavy burden on the part of the government agency to do the above services.
(2) More than one year has passed since the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries asked the New Zealand Embassy in Tokyo to present documents. We would like the ministry to ask New Zealand how it is going to deal with the matter.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Regarding the grading method
The complainant says, "An importer wishing to apply for JAS Standard grading is required to convert the performance table, product characteristics, etc. based on exporting country's standards into ones based on JAS standards." But, such an application method is not allowed under the JAS Law. As we have explained in our "Inquiry to the Complainant" *1, only those that conform to the JAS standard, which has been established to meet the needs of the Japanese people, can be graded. Since the items and criteria values of performance required and their testing methods differ between the JAS standard and the standard of a foreign country, we can accept neither the data based on the standard of a foreign country as the data for JAS standard grading nor the products graded based on the standard of a foreign country as the products graded by the JAS standard.
*1 < Excerpts from Inquiry to the Complainant >
The complainant says in the first paragraph of the complaint that "An importer wishing to apply for JAS Standard grading is required to convert the performance table, product characteristics, etc. based on exporting country's standards into ones based on JAS standards." However, since the items and criteria values of performance required and their testing methods differ between the JAS standard and the standard of a foreign country, we do not allow a grading system such as accepting the data based on the standard of a foreign country as the data for JAS standard grading. With regard to JAS standard grading of foreign products other than those produced by certified manufacturers, the following two methods are available:
1] Grading by a registered grading organization after the product is imported,
2] Grading by a registered grading organization (or a registered foreign grading organization) in the exporting country before the product is imported.
In either case, these organizations implement inspection and perform grading. There is no conversion of standards as pointed out by the complainant. The complainant may have a misunderstanding about the system.
(2) Regarding "initial judgement"
If the "initial judgement" referred to in the response (* in the above) from the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry means a judgement to ascertain if products to be imported conform to the JAS standard before they are graded, then we believe it is possible for the factory to judge if the products meet the criteria values prescribed in the JAS standard by conducting tests on its own or by asking a testing organization to test the products, because the JAS standard is a published document and it describes the testing method and the criteria value for each quality item. However, it goes without saying that such a "judgement" is not a formal grade and that the products have to obtain a regular grade.
(3) Grading methods prescribed by the JAS Law for foreign products
With regard to the grading of foreign products by JAS Law, the following methods are available:
1] Grading by a registered grading organization after the product is imported,
2] Grading by a registered grading organization in the exporting country before the product is imported,
3] Grading of a certified foreign manufacture by registered grading organization based on the old JAS Law (In this case, the registered grading organization can grade on the basis of inspection data provided by designated foreign inspection organization.)
4] A foreign plant performs grading by itself after being certified as a certified foreign manufacturer by a registered certification organization based on the revised JAS Law (Enforced in June 2000).
If the product in the complaint is not a product of a certified foreign manufacturer based on the old JAS Law, the product can get JAS grading under method 1] or 2] above. If a foreign plant is certified as a certified foreign manufacturer as in the method 4], the manufacturer in question can perform grading on the product of its own manufacture.
(4) Regarding why New Zealand is not recognized as a country having a system equivalent to the JAS system and how the ministry is going to deal with the matter in the future.
Under the revised JAS Law, an organization of a foreign country can be registered as a registered foreign grading organization or as a registered foreign certification organization. But the foreign country has to be one of those designated by the ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as a country having a grading system for agricultural or wood products equivalent to the grading system under the Japanese Agricultural Standard.
After receiving a request for an equivalency examination of the New Zealand's grading system for wood products and the JAS system on October 6, 2000, the ministry on the 13th of the same month asked the New Zealand Embassy in Tokyo to present documents necessary for the equivalency examination. But, so far, the embassy has failed to submit such documents. As soon as the documents are submitted, the ministry will start the proceeding for the equivalency examination.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) As we have explained earlier, since the items and criteria values of performance required and their testing methods are different between the JAS standard and the New Zealand standard, it is difficult to compare the two standards. With regard to glued laminated timber, for example, the testing timber, testing method and conformity requirements differ between the JAS standard's "degree of adhesive strength" and New Zealand's Glueline Integrity. Therefore, the products that conform to the New Zealand standard do not necessarily conform to the JAS standard.
(2) As to the equivalency examination concerning New Zealand's wood products, following an inquiry from the New Zealand embassy in Tokyo on January 29, 2002 concerning the equivalency examination and procedures for application for registered foreign certification organization, we explained to an official of the New Zealand Embassy in Tokyo on January 31, 2002 and February 4 of the same year about the documents necessary for the equivalency examination and the type of wood products to be examined.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
5-(2) Promoting importation of foreign-made wooden fire-proof doors
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
3. Complaint:
With respect to foreign-made wooden fire-proof doors, even if a product has been certified in a test similar to the certification test in Japan, the certification in an exporting country is not valid in Japan. The product is required to undergo a certification test in Japan and obtain a certificate.(This requirement remains unchanged even after the enforcement of the revised Building Standards Law of 2000 that introduced performance provisions concerning fire-proof doors and other deregulatory measures.)
(1) In European countries, wooden fire-proof doors are widely used. European countries have accumulated more knowledge concerning performance tests than Japan and the performance tests are reliable. Demand for wooden fire-proof doors has been rising sharply in Japan. Therefore, with regard to foreign-made wooden fire-proof doors, we want the ministry 1] to accept certification results in Europe and other exporting countries as they are and obviate the need to be certified in Japan, or 2] to accept test data conducted in a foreign country and perform examination and certification based on the data, so that a foreign certification will be easily approved as conforming to the Japanese standard and that the import of wooden fire-proof doors into Japan will be promoted.
(2) As to the "type confirmation certification" system, under which a foreign manufacturer gets certification from a recognized certifying organization, there is no recognized certifying organization at present and therefore we cannot utilize the system that is originally purported by the revised law. Moreover, even if a foreign organization was approved as a recognized certifying organization, it would be difficult to use the organization unless one has a long transaction history with foreign manufacturers. In order for a foreign manufacturer to be approved as such, it would entail high costs, as the manufacturer has to be virtually guided by a Japanese firm.
Therefore, we want the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to take measures so that we can utilize the kind of "recognized certifying organization" system that was originally purported by the law.
(3) Moreover, although the law in question, which was revised by the law of 1998, has adopted performance provisions, the Enforcement Order of the Building Standards Law and the ministerial notifications on structural methods for fire-proof equipment are not performance provisions but rather prescribe qualifications for fire-proof doors, such as materials and thickness. From the standpoint of performance provision, which is the original purpose of the law, we would like the ministry to change the prescriptions to something like "(things) having the property of ..." and take measures in order to cope with technological progress or trends in international building standards.
(Second complaint)
(1) The problem is that Japanese performance provisions and testing methods to prove the performance are different from those in foreign countries. What does the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport think of this?
This is a bottleneck when we want to utilize the system of recognized performance evaluation organization.
(2) Please tell us in specific terms the procedures for a foreign performance evaluation organization to be recognized by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
Please tell us how to get English language versions of papers necessary for the procedures and application.
(3) Which organizations are designated certifying organizations that include foreign countries in their scope of business? Do such designated certifying organization also perform recognized performance evaluation?
Is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport aware of the fact that there is no recognized certifying organization? What does the ministry think the scheme should be under which foreign manufacturers obtain type approval certification by being certified by a recognized certifying organization beforehand?
If the ministry thinks the scheme is useful, then what kind of positive measures does it plan to take in order to prompt certification by recognized certifying organizations?
(Third complaint)
We accept (1) and (2) of the second corresponding policy.
With regard to (3), our question is if "(organization) that includes foreign countries in the scope of its business" means that there are Japanese organizations that evaluate performance tests conducted in a foreign country. It is a matter of course and we don't need to ask whether a Japanese organization can conduct tests and evaluate foreign-made fire-proof doors in Japan.
We are now considering importing wooden fire-proof doors made in Hong Kong, where certification is based on the BS standard of the U.K. due to its historical background. Specifically, performance evaluation is made by the testing method prescribed in BS476. As the ministry says in its corresponding policy 1., the Japanese testing method conforms with the ISO. Our method, therefore, is almost the same as the Japanese testing method.
Under the present conditions, if we want to have the fire-proof doors certified in Japan, we have to undergo almost the same tests again despite of the fact that they have already been tested and certified in Hong Kong. They have to be certified individually, and the cost for each type of the doors amounts to about 3 million yen. This constitutes a big import barrier.
Since not only Hong Kong but also many other countries have adopted a method that is in conformity with the ISO, examination of papers alone should be enough when certifying products that have been certified by a foreign country. We don't think it necessary to repeat the same tests.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) As to foreign-made fire-proof doors, the Building Standards Law was revised in 1998 (and enforced in June 2000) in order to certify the conformity to the Japanese fire-proof standard by using test data of the country in question. If a foreign performance evaluation organization is recognized by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, a product accompanied by a performance certificate issued by the performance evaluation organization (to be called recognized performance evaluation organization) can be certified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Therefore, the complainant is advised to utilize the recognized performance evaluation organization system.
(2) In designating (domestic) or recognizing (foreign) a certifying organization that will conduct type approval certification, the ministry imposes the same requirements regardless of whether it is a Japanese organization or a foreign organization. If an organization meeting the requirements makes an application, it can be recognized as a recognized certifying organization.
There are already designated certifying organizations that include foreign countries in their scope of business. Since foreign manufacturers can obtain a type approval certificate from such an organization, the complainant is advised to utilize the type approval certification system through a designated certifying organization that includes foreign countries in of the scope of its business.
(3) The Building Standards Law was revised in 1998 (and enforced in June 2000) and the law now has performance provisions concerning building standards on fire-proof equipment. As a result, under the Enforcement Order of the Building Standards Law, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may certify a wooden fire-proof doors regardless of its material and thickness as long as it has flame insulation property of 20 minutes to one hour depending on the part of the door. Therefore, the point raised by the complaint that "we would like the ministry to change the prescriptions to something like '(things) having the property of ... '" has already been amended.
The complainant also says that "the ministerial notifications on structural methods for fire-proof equipment are not performance provisions but rather prescribe qualifications for fire-proof doors, such as materials and thickness." Since the notification in question is designed to show an example of specifications having required properties, the notification is not necessary if a product satisfies the required properties.
In the case of a foreign-made wooden fire-proof door that satisfies the required properties, it is advised to utilize the property standards of the Building Standards Law.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) The fire-proof testing method under the Japanese Building Standards Law conforms to the international standard ISO30008. If the complainant claims that the Japanese method differs from foreign testing methods, we would like to know in specific terms in what points it differs.
(2) The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport designates/recognizes a performance evaluation organization on the basis of Article 77-57 of the Building Standards Law and Articles 72 through 79 of the ministerial ordinance concerning designated confirmation bodies based on the Building Standards Law.
For detailed procedures concerning application, the complainant is advised to consult the Building Guidance Division, Housing Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
(3) Certification of structural methods, etc. refers to the system, under which the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport certifies that products not regulated by example specifications in the Building Standards Law have required properties on the basis of the performance evaluation performed by a designated/recognized performance evaluation organization. Type approval certification refers to the system, under which a designated/recognized certifying organization certifies beforehand the conformity to a certain set of standards (fire-proof, structure, etc.) prescribed in the Building Standards Law and part of building confirmation can be omitted. Since the complaint made by the complainant seems to be about certification of structural methods, etc. of fire-proof doors, we respond to the question about designated/recognized performance evaluation organization.
Among the designated performance evaluation organizations that include foreign countries in their scope of business are as follows;
The Building Center of Japan (BCJ)
The Center for Better Living
The General Building Research Corporation of Japan
These organizations conduct fire-proof tests and performance evaluation of foreign-made fire-proof doors.
In recognizing a recognized performance evaluation organization, the ministry imposes the same requirements as it imposes in designating a domestic designated performance evaluation organization. Since there is no recognized performance evaluation organization at the present time, foreign manufacturers can utilize performance evaluation by a designated performance evaluation organization that includes foreign countries in of the scope of its business.
(Third corresponding policy)
(1) Under the revised Building Standards Law that was enforced in June 2000, a foreign testing organization can be recognized by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, if the organization has a fair, neutral examination system, high technical examination capability and proper test implementation system. In recognizing an organization, the same examination standards will be applied regardless of whether it is a Japanese organization or a foreign organization.
(2) If a fire-proof door undergoes performance evaluation conducted by a recognized testing organization in a testing method conforming to the ISO, the fire-proof door can be certified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and it does not undergo a test again in Japan.
(3) Incidentally, procedures for recognition of organizations are under way in several countries. (We have not been consulted by any Hong Kong testing organizations concerning application for recognized performance evaluation organization.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
6. Information and Communications
6-(1) Simplifying technical standard conformity certification inspection, etc. concerning radio equipment for imported computers
1. Complainant: Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Pulic Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications
3. Complaint:
We had to give up on our plan to import radio equipment (a computer peripheral with a transmission power of about 0.01w) from Taiwan because we found that the relevant law and ordinances require that the equipment in question be brought in to a designated testing organization for one-by-one inspection.
Since expenses for the inspection and bringing in the equipment to a testing facility are too heavy a burden for the importer, they should be simplified and rationalized.
Meanwhile, we have heard that the products of major Japanese manufacturers are exempt from one-by-one inspection if their production lines, etc. are certified beforehand.
Amid calls for promoting small and medium-sized enterprises and venture firms, we want the ministry to take measures to reduce the burden on smaller businesses, such as easing the regulation on "one-by-one inspection" and "bring-in inspection."
Examples
(1) With regard to terminal equipment that uses radio waves under restriction of the Telecommunications Business Law, 1) in the case of extremely low power equipment (terminals that uses extremely low power), although they are exempt from Technical Regulation Conformity Certification stipulated in the Radio Law, they need to be confirmed as being extremely low power and a copy of the performance certification must, in principle, be attached to an application for technical regulation conformity certification, and 2) in the case of low output cordless telephones and medium radio LAN terminals (ratio stations with antenna power of less than 0.01w and designated by ministerial ordinances), they are subject to technical regulation conformity certification stipulated in Article 38-2-1 of the Radio Law.
Since one-by-one inspection of the equipment above is too heavy a financial burden for small and medium-sized enterprises that are making efforts to reduce purchase costs as much as possible, we would like the ministry to change from one-by-one inspection to sample inspection and reduce fees for sample inspection.
Inspection service is provided only by the Telecom Engineering Center (head office and branch offices). We would like the ministry to make it possible for us to utilize not only the Telecom Engineering Center but other inspection organizations as well.
After giving up on the plan to import the equipment in question, we have learned that there is a dispatch certification system. We didn't receive any information on the system before. We want the ministry to make the system well known and easy to use for small and medium-sized enterprises by specifying the details of the system, including 1) what is covered by the system (production line, each material, etc.), 2) inspection costs, and 3) the time required until undergoing inspection after application.
(2) With respect to the extremely low power equipment that does not require a radio station permit from the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications under the Radio Law, although certifying that the field density of the equipment is within the range set by the Radio Law is optional, violators of the Law will be penalized. Therefore, it is advisable to have it certified.
However, since certification inspection is performed only at a limited facility (Matsudo Laboratory of Telecom Engineering Center), importers in places distant from the laboratory find it difficult to utilize the facility. We would like the ministry to take measures to make it easy for importers in remote areas to utilize the facility.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
The technical regulation conformity certification system was introduced to reduce financial and time burdens on telecommunications operators by omitting inspection of the connection of telecommunications terminal equipment, such as mobile phones, to a telecommunications network done by telecommunications operators.
Under the system, "procedures for certification of design" and "procedures for omitting part of examinations, in the case where a recognized test operator submitted test results of applied equipment to a designated certification organization," in addition to "procedures for certification of individual equipment," have already been introduced.
As a result of the enforcement (November 2001) of the law that revised part of the Telecommunications Business Law, the requirement of being a public corporation was deleted from the criteria for being designated as a designated certification organization, opening the way for profit-making organizations to enter the market. We believe the introduction of competitive forces will promote competition among designated certification organizations and result in diversifying services and lowering fees, based on market forces.
The Telecommunications Business Law prescribes that the names of designated organizations that are designated by the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications shall be published. The names are carried in the official gazette. The Japan Approvals Institute for Telecommunications Equipment (JATE), a designated certification organization, makes known the costs and the time required for examinations under the approval or certification system through its pamphlets and Internet websites.
(1) The technical regulation conformity certification system for specified ratio equipment was established to alleviate the financial and time burdens borne by license applicants and licensing authorities by simplifying and rationalizing licensing procedures for specified radio equipment, such as mobile phones.
Under the system, in addition to "procedures for testing equipment one by one and certifying the equipment one by one," "procedures for testing a sample of each type of radio equipment ("construction design") and certifying the construction design in question" have already been introduced. Therefore, "one-by-one inspection" is not necessarily required. Moreover, procedures for omitting part of examinations, in the case where a recognized test inspector submitted test data on applied equipment to a designated certification organization, have also been introduced. Therefore, "bring-in inspection" is not necessarily required.
As a result of the enforcement of the law that revised part of the Radio Law in July 2001, the requirement of being a public corporation was deleted from the criteria for being designated as a designated certification organization, opening the way for profit-making organizations to enter the market. We believe the introduction of competitive forces will promote competition among designated certification organizations and result in diversifying services and lowering fees, based on market forces.
The Radio Law prescribes that the names of designated organizations that are designated by the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications shall be published. The names are carried in the official gazette. The Telecom Engineering Center, a designated certification organization, makes known the costs and the examination time required for the dispatch certification system and certification system through its pamphlets and Internet websites.
(2) Performance certification for extremely low power equipment is optional and it is up to manufacturers to decide whether to have their products certified or not.
Incidentally, in order to respond to voluntary applications for performance certification from people in far-away places, the Telecom Engineering Center accepts application and equipment to be certified by mail, if the application is made beforehand.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7. Import Procedures
7-(1) Simplifying procedures for refund of customs duty consumption tax due to return of imported goods
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
We have returned imported goods due to their inferior quality. It took us a long time to prepare for the procedures to get the customs duty and consumption tax refunded because there are so many complicated papers that must be attached to the application for the refund.
The customs house should fully explain the papers necessary for such procedures and minimize the number of such papers. In particular, the documents certifying that the goods are in violation of the contract should be minimized to only those papers (correspondence) in which the parties concerned recognize the inferior quality
(Second complaint)
We would like to confirm if "papers (correspondence) in which the parties concerned recognize the inferior quality" falls under the category of "documents certifying that the goods are in violation of the contract."
If they do not, please let us know in specific terms what constitutes "claim settlement documents (including telegrams or telexes in which the exporter has accepted the claim)."
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) In making an application for the refund of customs duty in the case of exportation or disposal of contract-violating goods, the application must be accompanied by documents certifying that the goods in question are in violation of a contract and the import permit or a certificate issued by the customs house.
In the case where the claim is established, claim settlement documents (including telegrams or telexes in which the exporter has accepted the claim) must be attached to the refund application as "documents certifying contract-violating goods" and in the case where the importer himself proves that the goods are in violation of the contract, analytical documents, test results, inspection certificates issued by authorized inspection organization, or other materials that prove that the goods are in violation of the contract must be attached to the application.
(2) In this way, we are striving to simplify the documents to be attached as much as possible in order not to put too much of a burden on importers. We will continue to explain necessary documents fully to importers and minimize the number of documents required for certifying contract-violating goods.
(Second corresponding policy)
As to the complainant's question whether "papers (correspondence) in which the parties concerned recognize the inferior quality" falls under the category of "documents certifying that the goods are in violation of the contract," we reply that if the document in question is a correspondence in which the parties concerned simply recognize inferior quality, it does not constitute a "claim settlement document."
In order for a "claim settlement document" to be recognized as a "document certifying contract-violating goods," it must contain at least the following items in specific terms:
1) The goods against which the claim has been made are specified.
2) The specific substance of the claim (except when it is clear from other materials)
3) The exporter has acknowledged the contract-violating goods.
4) The exporter has expressed his intention of accepting return (re-export) or disposal.
It would become a more desirable "claim settlement document," if the following items are also included:
5) The person who will bear the costs of the goods and return (disposal) is specified.
6) Signature of the exporter
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(2) Reviewing customs tariff classification of coffee maker jugs
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
The customs tariff classification of jugs, a part of coffeemakers, falls into the category of Glassware and miscellaneous (7013.39) when they are imported for sale individually.
The jug is attached with a coffeemaker lid and its outer appearance clearly shows that it is a part of coffeemaker. Therefore, it should be classified as Coffeemaker (8516.71) under the Customs Tariff Classification.
(Second complaint)
Our complaint is not about the tariff code or the tariff rate of jugs. Rather, it is a request for improvement or abolition of government regulations concerning import.
Our request is that coffeemaker jugs "should be classified as part of coffeemakers, not as glassware," because if classified as part of coffeemakers, the jug becomes duty-free.
We treat the jug as a part of coffeemakers. It is expressed as 8516 in the invoices from our suppliers.
We want to ask 1] why jugs imported as a part of coffeemakers are classified as group 7013.39, while jugs imported in a set with coffeemakers are duty free, and 2] why the ministry cannot move toward deregulation.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Under the regulations of the Customs Tariff Table, the article in question (jug) is a glassware item (coffee pot) for containing percolated coffee and therefore is classified as group 7013.39 table or kitchen glassware.
(2) The above classification can be confirmed from the Explanatory Notes prepared by the Harmonized System (HS) Committee of the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC). The Explanatory Notes, which were prepared to facilitate the interpretation of CCC nomenclature, says that among the items in group 70.13 (1) are table or kitchen glassware such as cups, goblets, tankards, decanters, baby bottles, pitchers, jugs, plates, salad bowls, sugar bowls, sauce jars, fruit bowls, cake bowls, hors d'oeuvre plates, bowls, pots, egg cups, butter dishes, oil or vinegar bottles, table or cooking plates, stewpans, casseroles, trays, saltshakers, sugar sprinklers, knife rests, mixers, table hand bells, coffee pot and coffee filters, candy jars, graduate kitchen utensils, plate warmers, table mats, some parts of whisks, coffee mill cups, cheese plates, lemon squeezers, water containers.
(3) The classification of tariffs is internationally unified under the HS Convention (International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System). Under the current system, we classify coffeemaker jugs as group 7013.39. Therefore, if coffeemaker jugs are to be classified into the same category as coffeemakers as the complainant calls for, first of all, we have to seek international consent in accordance with the procedures for modification of the classification.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) The classification of tariffs is internationally unified under the HS Convention (International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System). Since Japan is a member of the HS Convention, we are obliged to classify tariffs based on the regulations of the Convention.
(2) With regard to coffeemaker jugs, we classify jugs imported in a set with coffeemakers as group 8516.71 in view of the coffeemaker property of the good in question, in accordance with the HS Convention classification rules concerning set goods.
(3) On the other hand, jugs imported separately from coffeemakers are classified as group 7013.39 in view of their glassware property, as they were not in a set with coffeemakers at the time when they are imported. This classification method is in line with the view of the HS Committee that internationally unifies rules based on the HS Convention. It is also specified in group 70.13 of the Explanatory Notes prepared by the HS Committee to facilitate interpretation of the CCC nomenclature. The details of the classification are open to the public.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(3) Making laws to revise Customs Law and other laws well known before their enforcement
1. Complainant: Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
The importer has been importing pajamas from China. The goods in question had been benefiting from the preferential tariff rate (zero tariff duty). However, "the laws to revise part of the Customs Tariff Law and other laws" (Law of 2001, No. 21) were enforced in a rushed manner and a tariff rate of 8.5% has been imposed on imports in and after April 2001.
The importer had been importing the goods in March and followed import procedures in April every year. In the latest year, the importer also planned to import the goods in April and follow import procedures in April. However, due to the above revision of the laws, the importer had to pay tax on what had been duty free.
With respect to this case, the importer heard about the revision only from a customs broker. Based on a Customs Tariff Council report carried in the "Tsusho Koho" of late January 2001, the broker told the importer that "in view of the revision of the law, the goods in question are most likely to be removed from the list of items that are given preferential tariff treatment in and after April and that the removal will become definite when the revised law is enacted by the Diet at the end of March." Given the trading practice that an importer normally determines the specific amount of planned imports and concludes contracts with the exporter three months before actually importing, the importer needs to know for definite about the change of items concerning preferential customs duty at least three months beforehand. Therefore, instead of making the enforcement of a revised law known via a council report, which does not have any binding power on the people, and enforcing the law the day after it was promulgated, a law should be enforced following a familiarization period of about three months after it was promulgated.
(Second complaint)
It may be beyond the control of the ministry. However, we want the ministry to further strengthen its publicity activities and make officials of customs houses fully aware of the moves of customs tariff revision, even at the stage of submission of a report by the council.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Schedule for fiscal year-end revision of customs tariff
The Customs Tariff Law and other laws are revised in principle every fiscal year. This is because tariff revenue estimate constitutes part of the tax revenue estimate and because tariff revision as well as tax revision is incorporated in single-year budgetary policies. Therefore, the annual revision of customs tariff takes effect on April 1. The work schedule for tariff revision is basically the same as those for budget compilation and tax revision. Specifically, it goes along with the reference below.
(Reference) July: Ask ministries and agencies concerned to survey revision requests, Late August: Deadline for submission of revision requests; September-December: Consultations with ministries and agencies concerned on revision requests, and investigation and deliberation by councils; Late December: Council to submit report on tariff revision for the next fiscal year; January: Drafting legislation/Examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau; February: After a Cabinet decision, legislation is to be introduced to the Diet (Although it depends on the progress of deliberations at the Diet, legislation is usually passed by the Diet in mid or late March. Work for revising relevant Cabinet or ministerial ordinances to enforce revised laws will be made in time for the enforcement date.
(2) Method of drafting proposed amendment
Bills to revise the Customs Tariff Law and other laws that will be deliberated at the Diet are normally submitted by the Cabinet, and the Ministry of Finance is in charge of drafting the bills. Under laws and ordinances, the Council on Customs, Tariff, Foreign Exchange and other Transactions "shall deliberate revision of tariff rates and other important matters concerning customs tariff in response to the Minister of Finance's request for advice" (Article 8 of the Ministry of Finance Establishment Law, Article 6 of the Council on Customs, Tariff, Foreign Exchange and other Transactions Law). After the deliberation, the Council submits a report on annual revision, which the Minister of Finance uses as a guideline for drafting an amendment.
(3) Announcement to the public
In view of the nature of annual revision as mentioned above, the details of revision to laws, government ordinances, and ministerial ordinances concerning customs tariff are announced in official gazettes at the end of March.
In consideration of the short period from promulgation to enforcement, the Customs and Tariff Bureau of the Ministry of Finance makes the details of expected tariff revision readily available to the people. It announces the Council report, which serves as the guideline for annual revision, in newspapers and on the Internet (also in Jetrodaily) in late December and Cabinet-decided amendments on the Internet in early February.
With respect to the revision of tariff rates, in particular, the announcement on the Council report, not to mention the announcement on the Cabinet decision, carries clear and specific description of the substance.
(4) Conclusion
As we have described above, since law is usually enacted in mid or late March, there is almost no time span from the date of law promulgation in an official gazette to the date of law enforcement. However, since the work schedule for annual revision of customs tariff is usually fixed at the end of each year as in the case of tax revision that constitutes part of budgetary policies, it is difficult to move the work schedule, including the date of law enactment.
However, in order to help people make estimates concerning annual revision of customs tariff, the Ministry of Finance is striving to provide people with the Council report that constitutes a guideline for annual revision, including item-by-item revision of tariff rates, and legislative bills submitted to the Diet.
Although the report by the statutory council is not a decision by the Diet, it is a decision made after discussions by men of learning and expertise on customs tariff and the government authorities prepare proposed amendments based on the report. Therefore, we want the complainant to understand that the report is an extremely useful item of material when estimating the details of tariff revision.
(Second corresponding policy)
With regards to the points made in the re-complaint, the ministry has been striving to make officials of customs houses fully aware of the progress of tariff revision even at the stage of report submission by the council, in addition to taking the measures mentioned in our previous response.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(4) Simplifying and rationalizing import quota application procedures for laver
1. Complainant: Sapporo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
3. Complaint:
Laver is a non-liberalized item under the Exchange and Foreign Trade Law and the Cabinet Order Concerning Control of Import Trade and it cannot be imported to Japan unless one receives an import quota.
As to allocation of a quota based on imports of the previous year, it can be made electronically via JETRAS. But, as to first-come, first-served allotments and fresh allotments, applicants have to go to the head office of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to make an application. This is too heavy a burden for operators in remote areas, such as Hokkaido.
In the case of application for supposedly first-come, first-service allotments in the first half of fiscal 2001, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry hastily changed the allocation method and determined the order of application by lots, as the number of applicants was far more than the ministry had expected. (For an operator in Sapporo that visits Tokyo believing that application is on a first-come, first-served basis, it would be a huge time and financial loss if the application method is changed to a lot system and if he draws a losing number. It would be difficult for the operator to carry on business systematically.)
Therefore, in order to make application for first-come, first-served allotments and fresh allotments easy for business operators in distant places, we would like the ministry to 1] allow electronic application or application by mail, or 2] accept applications at Regional Bureaus of Economy, Trade and Industry.
(Second complaint)
(1) The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry stated that it adopted the lot method for application for first-come, first-served allotments based on the import announcement dated March 27, 2001. However, the import announcement only stated that "If the total number of applications for import quota allocation exceeds the maximum limit of import quota allocation, the order of application shall be determined by lots," and describes conditions for determining the order by merely drawing lots (The possibility thereof is described.) From the viewpoint of importing firms, they cannot certainly know whether or not a drawing of lots will actually be held.
In order to avoid confusion on the acceptance day of application for first-come, first-served allotments and ensure efficient operational activities, the ministry should improve the method for application for first-come, first-served allotments so that, if the order is to be determined by drawing lots it will be determined and announced beforehand.
As for applications in fiscal 2001, so many applicants (more than 3,000) assembled that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had to hastily change the scheduled lot site. The lot site was so crowded and chaotic that even emergency exits could not be identified, and there was concern that a catastrophe will occur in the event of fire.
In fiscal 2002, the number of applications is expected to be twice or three times as many as the last fiscal year due to promotion of Japan-South Korea exchanges, so the lot site is expected to be even more crowded and chaotic.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry should reveal how it plans to deal with such conditions.
Furthermore, in order to prevent the crowded and chaotic conditions mentioned above, the ministry should improve the application method as stated below so that operators in remote areas do not need to go all the way to Tokyo.
(2) The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry claims that a drawing of lots by applicants in front of other applicants contributes to fair and prompt screening. However, those who drew lots were not applicants themselves but students or housewives, who were part-time workers employed by major trading firms located in Tokyo to file applications even by using the names of affiliated companies.
Seeing such conditions, we cannot help but consider the ministry's claim a sophism.
Moreover, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry stated that a drawing of lots can prevent duplicate applicants and ensure fair and prompt screening, but we believe this idea is exceedingly dated.
Duplicate applicants can be eliminated by computerization with higher reliability and less paper work. The time required from the initial application to the issuance of an import quota certificate would also be shortened under an electronic environment.
We therefore believe that the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry should aim at simplifying and rationalizing application procedures for operators in remote areas 1) by managing applicants for first-come, first-served allotments and lots under an electronic environment and 2) by taking measures to carry out paper screening on candidates determined under such an environment at each regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry.
(Third complaint)
We are surprised to read the second corresponding policy of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, in which the ministry is trying to justify its operations by using one sophism after another. That nobody knows how many applicants visit the ministry on the application date makes it all the more necessary to accept application papers at local offices beforehand or electronic application. Small and medium-sized enterprises are calling for such a measure for financial reasons as well.
The story that applicants wanted to have the drawing of lots held in front of them is dated. All the applicants we contacted at the lot site last year questioned the advisability of holding a drawing of lots in front of all applicants.
We believe that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is seriously tackling the issue of computerizing licensing and other operations, which is one of the major objectives of the structural reforms now being promoted by the government. We, as small businesses, want to ask the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which is dealing with measures for new businesses and start-up businesses, to promote reform in real earnest.
We will not take issue with the ministry on proxy applicants, changes of venue, dangerous lot sites, etc. any longer, because they boil down to nothing more than gutter-level controversy.
However, simplifying application acceptance is necessary both for applicants and for the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. We want the ministry to simplify the application system by all means in the near future.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
With regard to the complainant's request that the ministry should either 1] allow electronic application or application by mail, or 2] accept applications at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry, we cannot accept the request for the following reasons:
(1) Implementation of fair lots in response to requests from applicants
We have adopted the lot method for application for first-come, first-served quota allotments for laver based on Nov. 52-6 of the official import announcement dated March 27, 2001 as there are a large number of applicants (in fiscal 2000, there were 1,274 applicants as against 230 successful applicants).
The lot is held before the eyes of all applicants in order to prevent duplicate applications and ensure fair, prompt screening. Applicants who draw winning numbers are declared successful applicants. Of them, those who passed the screening of papers will be allotted a quota.
We have decided to hold the drawing of lots in front of the applicants because a large majority of the applicants strongly request that it be held before their eyes.
We do not accept electronic application because it does not allow us to hold a drawing of lots in front of the applicants.
(2) Securing prompt screening
If we accepted electronic application, application by mail, or application at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry, the applicants may not need to come to Tokyo. But, they still have to come to Tokyo to take part in the drawing of lots when they undergo paper screening. Therefore, even if we adopted this method, it would only prolong the time required from the application to the issuance of an import quota certificate and would rather infringe on the interest of the applicants.
Judging from the request from a large majority of applicants and the need to ensure prompt screening as we mentioned above, it is inevitable for us to stick to the current method.
(Second corresponding policy)
The complainant says that whether or not a drawing of lots will be held should be determined and announced beforehand. It is difficult for us to announce it beforehand, because we don't know how many applicants are coming until the application day. With regard to the drawing of lots in fiscal 2001, the complainant says the venue where it was to take place was changed. This is not true. Since this year's drawing of lots is also expected to draw many applicants, we are striving to secure an appropriate place to hold the drawing of lots promptly.
The complainant also says that many of the applicants were part-time workers. But, we don't think there were cases of name borrowing. The persons who drew lots met the requirements of being those "who import goods in their own name and at their own risk." In view of the fact that a large majority of applicants want the drawing of lots to be held in front of them, it is difficult to introduce an electronic application system.
(Third corresponding policy)
We are aware of the importance of simplifying application procedures and will continue studying what measures we can take to do so. We intend to aggressively promote the computerization of application but we would like the complainant to understand that there are still technical problems.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(5) Making import tariffs on automobile carpets reasonable
1. Complainant: South Korean Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
With regard to carpeting automobiles, those "of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles" are subject to no duty, but other articles are subject to a 9.6% tariff.
Our client in Japan requests that our carpeting for automobiles be delivered in rolled form. Since it is clear from the materials that the product in question is for use in motor vehicles, the tariff classification of carpeting for automobiles should be applied to the product if the client (a subcontractor of an automobile maker) presents a "purpose-of-use certificate" or other relevant documents at the time of customs clearance.
(Second complaint)
Considering that the distinction between carpeting for automobiles and carpeting for general indoor use is clear from the use and materials of the carpeting, it is unfair to impose duty on the product in question.
In order to fundamentally solve the problem, we want the ministry to apply the HS number for "carpeting for automobiles" to the product in question.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of the Customs Law, the tariff classification for imported goods is determined not by the final use of the product but by its state when the import declaration is made.
(2) Regarding application of tariff classification 5703.20, 5703.30, and 5704.90, of carpeting for automobiles "of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles," which is subject to no duty under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Law, it is not sufficient for the goods to be for use in automobiles, the actual product must be judged to be of suitable size and shape at the time of the import declaration.
(3) Accordingly, since the product in question is in rolled form, and not cut or sized in any way, at the time of the import declaration, the tariff classification 5703.20, 5703.30, and 5704.90, of carpeting for automobiles "of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles" (subject to no duty) does not apply.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of the Customs Tariff Law, the tariff classification for imported goods is determined not by the final use of the product but by its state when the import declaration is made.
(2) Regarding application of tariff classification 5703.20, 5703.30, and 5704.90, of carpeting for automobiles "of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles," which is subject to duty under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Law, the actual product must be judged to be of suitable size and shape at the time of the import declaration.
(3) Since the product in question is in rolled form, and not cut or sized in any way, we cannot accept the complainant's claim that the product can clearly be judged as carpeting for automobiles from its use and materials. The product cannot be classified as "of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles."
(Reference)
< Article 4 of the Customs Law >
The nature and quantity of freight on which customs duty is based is determined by its state when the import declaration for the freight in question is made.
< Attached table of the Customs Tariff Law: Customs tariff table regulations >
57.03 Carpets or other textile floor coverings (tufted covering regardless of whether it is a product or not)
5703.20 Those made of nylon or other polyamides: Applicable rate
5703.20-1 Of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles: No duty
5703.20-2 Other articles: 7%
5703.30 Those made of other synthetic fibers
5703.30-1 Of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles: No duty
5703.30-2 Other articles: 7%
57.04 Carpets or other textile floor coverings (limited to felt covering regardless of whether it is a product or not, but not tufted or flocked)
5704.90 Other articles
5704.90-1 Of size and shape suitable for incorporation in motor vehicles: No duty
5704.90-2 Other articles: 8.2%
5. Remarks
The complainant is now examining the matter.
7-(6) Extension of work hours for customs offices
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
For an importer who wants to carry out import procedures on holidays, at night or outside normal customs office hours (8:30-17:00), the overtime service system is available. However, the importer has to make an application for extended hours of operation within the regular working hours of the customs and pay fees for overtime customs service.
Instead of the overtime service system, the working hours should be extended so that import procedures can be made 24 hours a day. In particular, at ports and airports, where many import procedures are handled, a system of 24-hour operations for import procedures should be adopted promptly.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Where customs is concerned, if there is a request for import procedures at night, on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays, necessary officials are staffed upon application based on Article 98 of the Customs Law.
(2) At customs offices that receive many requests for import procedures outside of regular working hours, customs staff are on duty even after regular working hours.
(Reference)
Customs offices where staff are on duty even after regular working hours:
Tokyo Customs, Narita Air Cargo Terminal: 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
Osaka Customs, Kansai Airport customs branch: 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
Moji Customs, Shimonoseki customs branch: 365 days a year (8:30-17:00)
Nagoya Customs, Nagoya Airport customs branch: 365 days a year, until last flight (8:30-21:30)
Tokyo Customs, Haneda Airport, Tokyo Air Cargo Terminal: Weekdays until 20:00, Saturday 8:30-17:00
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(7) Partially abolishing import quotas on marine products and simplifying and rationalizing application procedures for import quotas
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
3. Complaint:
Japan restricts the import volume of some marine products under the Import Quota System, with the aim of protecting Japanese fishermen. (Article 9 of the Cabinet Order Concerning Control of Import Trade)
Of the non-liberalized items, import quotas for herring, mackerel, sardine, and horse mackerel are set at amounts far larger than can be handled by individual importers. Therefore, restricting imports of the above items by the Import Quota System is in effect meaningless.
Moreover, despite the meaninglessness of the import restriction on the above non-liberalized items, importers are required to carry out cumbersome procedures, such as applying for import quota and submitting monthly customs clearance reports.
Procedures for import quota, not only for the above items but also for other products, involve the following problems:
1] When applying for import quota, the importer is required to submit documents that seem to be unnecessary, such as a copy of the withholding slip of the person in charge of the clerical work.
2] Since the application date, time, and place are unilaterally designated, there is no grace period. Moreover, since the order of screening of applications is determined by the drawing of lots, importers are tied down for long hours. In addition, since the only application place is the head office of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (in the case of quota allotment for first timers or on a first-come, first-served basis, it is too heavy a burden on the applicants.
3] After obtaining an import quota (IQ), the importer is required to apply for a switch from IQ to import license (I/L) every time it concludes a contract and therefore has to go to a designated place for the application. Amid the moves to computerize various applications, it is too heavy a burden for an importer to submit applications in person. Although importers state their import volume in the import license, they are also required to submit a report on the amount of customs-cleared imports every month
Therefore, we would like the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to take the following measures:
(1) Liberalize the above items and abolish import restrictions
(2) Simplify and rationalize procedures for import quota not only for the above items but also for other items.
1) With regard to import quota application, study the necessity of attaching documents and simplifying and rationalizing such documents.
2) With regard to the application date, give the applicants some time to spare, for example, by setting several days as an application acceptance period and conducting a drawing of lots on a later day. As to the place of application, measures should be taken to ease the burden on local importers, such as by allowing application at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry or computerized application.
3) As to a switch from import quota (IQ) to import license (I/L), methods other than submitting the application in person should be approved, such as on-line submission and submission by fax.
With regard to import volume, since importers state the volume when receiving an import license, the redundant "report on customs-cleared imports" should be abolished.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) As to the complainant's request for liberalizing the import of herring, mackerel, sardine and horse mackerel and abolishing import restrictions on them:
The marine product IQ (import quota) system covers horse mackerel, mackerel, etc. the main catches of Japanese fishermen engaged in coastal or deep-sea fishing, and Japan shares fishing grounds/resources with its neighboring countries. It is impossible to effectively conserve and manage the shared resources by regulating the fishing of Japanese fishermen alone. The IQ system plays an important role of supplementing resource management setups such as the TAC system and the license system, which are enforced on Japanese fishermen. Since these functions remain necessary for the future, we cannot abolish the import restrictions on the above kinds of fish.
As to the complainant's request for simplifying and rationalizing procedures for import quota not only for the above items but also for other items and studying the necessity of attaching documents and simplifying and rationalizing such documents:
The documents required for first-come, first-served import quotas and their necessity are as follows. Since minimum documents are required, it is difficult to review the documents to be submitted.
1] Import quota application in duplicate
This is a document that an importer under Article 2-1-1-b of the Regulations for Control of Import (Ordinance of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry of 1949, No. 77) is required to submit for being allocated an import quota. The original will be issued to the importer and the copy will be kept by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as a memorandum.
2] The original and a copy of the import contract
This is to certify the importer's intention to import. The original will be returned to the importer immediately after confirmation and the copy will be kept by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
3] A document certifying that the importer undergoes import clearance in his own name and at his own risk, and the following two documents.
These documents are necessary in order to examine if a corporation or an individual has the intention and ability to import and if the same company is not making double application.
3]-1 Accompanying document 1
(In the case of a listed company)
*Securities report of the last one year
(In the case of other corporations)
*Certified copy of the commercial register of the corporation
*Certified copy of the real estate register or a copy of lease contract
(In the case of individual)
*Certificate of residence, national health insurance card, driving license, etc.
The above document is to certify that the corporation is actually in existence and engaged in business
3]-2 Accompanying document 2
(In the case of corporations)<
*A copy of the attached list 1 of the final income tax return submitted to the tax office
(stamped with the seal of the tax office or certified by the tax office) (In the case of individuals)
*Final income tax return, etc.
(Or a withholding slip, etc. in the case of an individual who quit the company this year and started business as a proprietor)
When a person, who was allotted an import quota, imports the goods for which the quota was allotted, he has to pay for the goods. The above document is to certify that the person has the ability to pay.
As to the complainant's requests for 1] giving applicants some time to spare, for example, by setting several days as the application acceptance period and doing a drawing of lots on a later day, and 2] concerning application place, taking measures to ease the burden on local importers, for example, by allowing application at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry or computerized application:
1] Even if several days are set as the application acceptance period and is the drawing of lots is held on a later day, applicants in local areas still have to come to Tokyo twice - at the time of application and at the time of the drawing of lots - as they are required to submit application in person in order to avoid double application. Since this will considerably infringe on the interest of the applicants, it is difficult for us to adopt this method.
2] As to the place of application, it is difficult to allow application at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry or computerized application for the following reasons:
(i) Implementation of fair drawing of lots in response to requests from applicants
We have adopted the lot method for application for first-come, first-served quota allotments, as there are a large number of applicants. The drawing of lots is held before the eyes of all applicants in order to prevent duplicate applications and ensure fair, prompt screening. Applicants who draw winning numbers are declared successful applicants. Of them, those who pass the screening of papers will be allotted a quota. We have decided to hold the drawing of lots in front of the applicants because a large majority of the applicants strongly request that it be held in front of them
We do not accept electronic application because it does not allow us to hold a drawing of lots in front of the applicants.
(ii) Securing prompt screening
If we accepted electronic application, application by mail, or application at a regional Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry, the applicants might not need to come to Tokyo. But, they would still have to come to Tokyo to take part in the drawing of lots when they undergo paper screening. Therefore, even if we adopted this method, it would only prolong the time required from the application to the issuance of an import quota certificate and would rather infringe on the interest of the applicants.
As to the complainant's request 1] concerning a switch from import quota (IQ) to import license (I/L) that methods other than submitting the application in person should be approved, such as on-line submission and submission by fax and 2] concerning import volume that since importers state the volume when receiving an import license, the redundant "report on customs-cleared imports" should be abolished:
Since we need to do a lot in front of all applicants, we do not accept on-line application for quota allotment on a first-come, first-served basis. Even if we accepted on-line application for the switch, it would not save the applicants' time and effort, as they are required to submit the original.
When switching from the IQ to the I/L, the applicant has to write down the necessary information in the IQ original. Therefore, it is difficult to approve the application by fax.
2] The import volume that is required to be submitted at the time import quota allocation is an application volume and is different in nature and purpose from the report on customs-cleared imports that certifies that the import has actually been carried out. Therefore, it is difficult to abolish it. (IQ recipients are in principle required to import the full amount stated in the application in order to meet domestic demand.)
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(8) Providing information on import cargo via the Internet
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
In the current NACCS, only customs brokers using the NACCS can track the customs-clearance status of a cargo during import procedures.
We are told that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is currently studying ways to make it possible to access the NACCS via the Internet. The ministry should establish a system that will make it possible for importers to search the customs-clearance status of their cargo. In such a case, the use of the NACCS via the Internet should in principle be free of charge.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) We are now studying utilizing the Internet in the NACCS. We believe the use of the Internet will make it possible for customs brokers to track the customs-clearance status of imported cargo.
(2) However, since the operation expenses for the NACCS are paid with user fees collected from customs houses and private users, it is difficult to make the use of the system via the Internet free, although the fee may be reduced by cutting network costs.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(9) Notifying and standardizing the forms of documents to be submitted in application for importing OEM goods
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
We are a supplier of brand products on an OEM basis. However, every time we import goods produced in our overseas factory, we are supposed to submit to the customs office a letter pledging that the goods will be sold and delivered to our customers owning the brand name or a written agreement from the customers.
Since this procedure is not well known, it is difficult and time-consuming to get the customers' understanding of the procedure and have them submit a written agreement. Therefore, the customs office should clarify and make thoroughly known the procedure concerning application for importing OEM products by issuing a notification. In addition, from the standpoint of reducing the burden, the forms of the written pledge and agreement that are required in applying for importing OEM products should be fixed.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) An article that infringes trademark or other intellectual property rights is prescribed as contraband good under Article 21-1-5 of the Customs Tariff Law. When the customs office considers that a cargo on import declaration infringes trade mark or other rights, the office initiates procedures to determine whether the cargo infringes trade mark or other rights (certification procedures), notifies the rights holder and the importer to that effect, and gives them the chance to submit proof and to state their opinions.
(2) Since certification procedures, if initiated in the case in question, prolong customs clearance, the customs office may permit import without going through certification procedures if the import declaration is accompanied by documents certifying the authenticity of the declared cargo. The documents are to be submitted on a voluntary basis.
(3) In this case in question, the forms of the documents to be submitted on a voluntary basis are not fixed. They will do as long as they certify the authenticity of the declared cargo. Among such documents are order slips from the rights holder, regular licensee, etc., a copy of the contract, and a written agreement on import issued by the rights holder.
(4) An importer may submit beforehand documents certifying goods in question are declared items on a voluntary basis in order to prevent certification procedures from being initiated by the customs office after the declaration of import. It is not necessarily required to submit the documents to the customs office in import declaration. Even if the documents are submitted, the customs office will initiate certification procedures if it suspects infringement of rights. Therefore, the documents in question are one form of sales illustrations. It is not that the customs office will automatically permit import without initiating certification procedures as long as specific documents are submitted.
(5) Moreover, if the customs office fixed the forms of the documents and did not accept papers other than in a fixed form, it would unnecessarily tighten regulations. Therefore, we believe it is more reasonable to accept documents in a variety of forms rather than fix the forms.
5. RemarksThe complainant accepted this policy.
7-(10) Promoting 24-hour operations of harbor loading and unloading
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
3. Complaint:
As a result of the revision of the labor-management agreement on the working hours of harbor loading and unloading in April 2000, it is said that stevedoring on Sundays and whole-day harbor practices except for 4 hours before the daybreak on weekdays are now available. ("Response of ministries and agencies to opinions and requests from Japan and abroad concerning regulatory reforms" April 2001). However, in the case of the container yard at Osaka harbor, for example, loading operations are open only Monday through Friday (Saturday mornings in some cases) and the working hours are set at 8:30~11:30 and 13:00~16:00. The situation is the same in the 9 major ports in Japan.
The ministry says that the problem should be solved not by regulations by the state but through talks between the labor and management. However, even if customs clearance operations are open 24 hours a day, it is meaningless if harbor operations are not open for 24 hours. Therefore, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should work on the business organizations concerned to improve the situation from the standpoint of harbor users.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport says that, from the standpoint of maintaining and strengthening the international competitiveness of major Japanese ports, it will establish a study committee composed of related persons and study measures to remove factors that obstruct moves toward 24 hour operations. We would like to know the progress and details of the study.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) With regard to the 24-hour full opening of harbor practices, "The Outline of New Comprehensive Distribution Measures" (Cabinet decision on July 6, 2001) says, "In order to further enhance the efficiency and services of harbor operations, (the government) will strengthen business foundations by promoting computerization and joint operations of work and promote efforts by the parties concerned to realize 24-hour full opening of harbor practices, while striving to expand the working hours for administrative procedures.
(2) The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, for its part, inaugurated the FY2001 Harbor Distribution Efficiency Promotion Study Committee on June 21 to realize 24-hour full opening of harbor practices at an early date. The committee is composed of representatives of the parties concerned, including the Japan Harbor Transportation Association, the Japanese Shipowners' Association (JSA), Japan Shippers' Council, the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations, harbor administrators, and the administration (Ports and Harbors Bureau, Maritime Bureau, Customs and Tariff Bureau, Japan Coast Guard, and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare). The committee is now investigating specific requests from shipping companies and shippers, problems of labor costs arising from the introduction of a work shift system, and conditions of individual harbors.
(Note: As a result of labor-management consultations held later, it was agreed to open harbor operations 24 hours throughout the year, except on January 1. The 24-hour, 364 days-a-year full opening of harbor practices was realized in late November 2001.)
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(11) Flexibly applying import declarations concerning chips
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
When we import chips, we make preliminary declaration and finish import inspection before entering the port by utilizing the preliminary inspection system.
In the case where a chip ship enters a port outside of regular hours of the customs office and the chips are unloaded at the harbor yard, it should make it possible for the importer to go through import declaration procedures during the working hours of the customs office the next day, instead of requiring import declaration during the outside of regular hours on the same day.
Since a chip ship is often kept in a state of demurrage, the customs-clearance procedures after the ship is anchored at the wharf start after the regular working hours of the customs office. Therefore, it should make it possible for the importer to take customs-clearance procedures after the completion of port-entry procedures even for ships in demurrage in an open port.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) In the case where the preliminary inspection system is utilized for importing wood chips, the importer does not need to make regular declaration (import declaration) immediately after the chips in question are brought in to the bonded area. If the importer so desires, the import declaration can be made during the working hours of the customs office the next day.
(2) In the case of making import declaration while wood chips are still on board the ship, if the chief customs inspector gives prior approval, the importer can make import declaration without bringing in the wood chips to the bonded area.
In this case, a "freight list" has to be submitted to the customs office prior to the import declaration.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(12) Concerning simplifying and speeding up the submission of necessary documents in importing medical equipment
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
In order to import medical instruments, each sales office of the importer is required to obtain an importer/seller permit beforehand and an import approval and an import item permit for each medical instrument to be imported. Moreover, the importer is also required to submit or present many documents at the customs office.
1] Purchase statement (copy)
2] Air waybill (AWB) or Bill of Landing (B/L) (copy)
3] Medical instrument importer/seller permit (copy)
4] Medical instrument import approval (copy) and import item permit (copy)
5] Submission of the list of customs-cleared parts, etc. (Original documents from the importer)
A list of import/sale permitted items is attached to the medical instrument importer/seller permit. Since the approval number of the medical instrument import approval, the permit date and items (names) are stated in the list, it is possible to certify import/sale permit and import approved items by the medical instrument importer/seller permit. (However, since details of the attachments and parts are stated in the import approval, the customs office demands that the importer specify in what part of the import approval the attachments and parts listed in the purchase statement are individually described.)
Moreover, as to 5] the list of customs cleared parts, a customs broker is required to prepare a parts list in handwriting and describe on what page of the pharmaceutical regulation book each part in the list is described. These requirements delay the issuance of a customs clearance permit and make operations inefficient and complicated.
Therefore, we want the ministry to limit the documents required for submission in importing medical instruments to only the medical instrument importer/seller permit and the accompanying list of import/sale permitted items and discontinue demanding the submission of a written import approval. In this way, the ministry should promote speedy, simplified customs clearance procedures.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Customs clearance procedures for medical instruments are carried out at the customs office. Since it is difficult to confirm that imported items and the items the importer is permitted to import and sell (permitted items) are identical from the names of the items alone, it is necessary to confirm the shape, structure, and measurements of the items as well.
Since large medical instruments are sometimes imported in the form of detached parts, it is necessary to confirm that the imported instruments are identical with the permitted instruments from the medical instrument import approval, in which specifications of the medical instrument are described.
Therefore, in order to confirm that the imported items and the permitted items are identical, it is not enough to present a medical instrument importer/seller permit in which only names of the items are given.
Ministry of Finance
(1) As to the submission or presentation of "medical instrument import approval," "import item permit," and "list of customs cleared parts, etc." to the customs office, it is the matter that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which is in charge of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, has specifically asked the Customs to handle in view of the purpose and necessity of the documents.
(2) The customs office confirms that an importer has the permits and approvals required by other laws and ordinances on the basis of the documents. Article 70 of the Customs Law prescribes that unless the importer certifies in import declaration that he has the permits and approvals in question, the customs office shall not permit import.
(3) Therefore, whether or not omit the submission or presentation of the documents in question is a matter to be decided by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which is in charge of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law.
(Reference)
Article 70 of the Customs Law:
With regard to freight that requires permits and approvals under other laws and ordinances, the importer has to certify in the import declaration that he has the permits and approvals in question. Unless otherwise, the customs office shall not permit the import of the freight.
Basic Notices Related to Customs 70-3-1, Attachment No. 1 (i)-(2)-b:
It is necessary to submit or present "importer/seller license," "import approval," and "import item change (addition) permit."
Communication (Communication issued by Import Division Director on June 10, 1987):
If the importer of a medical instrument or attachments to medical instruments is unable to easily explain to which import approvals the instrument or attachments in question are related, the importer will be required to submit a "customs clearance list of the parts of the medical instrument."
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(13) Lifting restricted conditions of importers in simplified declaration system
1. Complainant: Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned:Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
The simplified declaration system allows importers who have been qualified beforehand by the Director-General of Customs to receive duly identified import cargoes before making tariff declaration. The application for the use of the system must be made by company, not by business division or establishment of a company.
This restrictive condition hampers the use of the system by big enterprises that deal in many different goods. Therefore, the one-application-per-company restriction should be abolished.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Under the simplified declaration system, importers who have been qualified beforehand by the Director-General of Customs (special importers) can separate import declarations from tariff declarations for cargoes that are identified as being imported continuously and make tariff declarations after receiving the cargoes on condition of their full compliance with law. At the same time, the importers are obliged to submit a special statement within a fixed period (Article 7-2-2 of the Customs Law) and keep required accounts (Article 7-9-1 of the Customs Law).
(2) In actual merchandise trade, it is true that some business divisions or establishments act as if they are independent of the corporation to which they belong. However, they only act for the purpose of the corporation as internal organizations of the corporation and the effects of their legal acts in principle belongs to the corporation in question.
(3) In view of the legal status of the above business divisions or establishments, it is reasonable to judge that the rights and obligations of the special importers under the Customs Law are attributable to the corporation to which they belong. Therefore, the current system is appropriate.
(4) The Customs is striving to certify special importers promptly, except for those who are applicable to reasons for rejection prescribed in Article 7-5 of the Customs Law. And in order to facilitate various procedures, including certification of special importer, a simplified declaration administrator who is responsible for overall operations concerning the simplified declaration system is stationed at each customs office. The administrator also offers advice on various procedures.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(14) Improving simplified declaration system
1. Complainant: Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned:Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
The simplified declaration system allows importers who have been qualified beforehand by the Director-General of Customs to receive duly identified import cargoes before making tariff declaration.
Under the system, "cargo receipt security" equivalent to the estimated amount of customs duty on the identified cargoes or equivalent to 1/12 of the customs duty paid in the previous year, whichever is larger, must be deposited by the end of the preceding month. On the other hand, the deadline for tariff declarations is at the end of the following month. However, if an importer files a written request for extension of the deadline, the payment of such customs duty may be deferred for a period not exceeding two months. Therefore, the importer can pay customs duty three months after he imports the cargoes.
For small and medium-sized enterprises, depositing security is a burden as it means they have to tie up capital. This is one of the reasons why the system is not utilized widely.
Therefore, the amount of the "cargo receipt security" that must be deposited by the end of the month preceding the month when import is to be made should be set at the monthly average of the customs duty paid in the previous year and the payment should be deferred for one year. If importers are allowed to make duty declarations every three months without having to file a request for a deadline extension, they will more positively utilize the simplified declaration system.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) Under the system, security (or so-called cargo-receipt security) equivalent to 1/12 of the amount of customs duty on the identified cargoes paid in the previous year (or the monthly average of duty paid in the previous year) or equivalent to the estimated amount of the customs duty on the identified cargoes to be imported in the month, whichever is larger, must be deposited by the end of the preceding month. This is designed to secure the claims, such as customs duty, by requiring a deposit of security equivalent to the customs duty, as the simplified declaration system allows importers to receive cargoes without paying customs duty. (Article 7-8-1 of the Customs Law)
Any person intending to have the deadline extended for the payment of customs duty on identified cargoes shall deposit security equivalent in amount to the customs duty. Then, a time limit of payment of such customs duty may be deferred for a period not exceeding two months. This is designed to secure the claims, such as customs duty, by requiring a deposit of security equivalent to the amount of customs duty of which payment has been deferred. (Article 9-2-3 of the Customs Law)
(2) Since the system proposed by the complainant requires a deposit of cargo receipt security equivalent to only a one-month amount of customs duty, it is tantamount to proposing the following system:
1] For import in a certain month (for example September, hereinafter to be referred to as "the month"), the importer utilizes the simplified declaration system by depositing cargo receipt security (1/12 of the amount of duty paid in the previous year) and extends the deadline of payment for two more months by using the security.
2] For import the following month (October), the importer utilizes the simplified declaration system without depositing cargo receipt security and extends the deadline of payment for one more month without depositing security.
3] For import two months later (November), the importer utilizes the simplified declaration system without depositing cargo receipt security.
4] For import in three months later (December), the importer utilizes the simplified declaration system without depositing cargo receipt security and extends the deadline of payment for two more months without depositing security.
(For import in four months later (January), the importer can use the cargo receipt security deposited in 1], as the customs duty for the month (September) is paid at the end of the third month (December) after the month.)
(3) Therefore, the importer can utilize the simplified declaration system and the payment deadline extension system for four months by depositing cargo receipt security for only one month. Since this makes it impossible to secure claims, such as customs duty, for at least three months, we cannot introduce the system proposed by the complainant.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
7-(15) Introducing import declaration procedures by JETRAS
1. Complainant: Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. Ministry concerned:Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry: Ministry of Finance
3. Complaint:
We can make an export declaration via JETRAS, but one year after its operation, we still cannot make an import declaration via the system.
At present, we entrust our import declaration procedures to a customs broker, who makes the procedures by using NACCS. However, all private enterprises want to reduce customs clearance expenses as much as possible.
(1) If import declaration via JETRAS is made possible, we could make declarations at our office without entrusting the work to a customs broker. Therefore, we would like import declarations via JETRAS to be made possible by all means.
We are told that preparations are now under way for linking JETRAS with NACCS, based on a cabinet decision. However, for users like us, linkage with NACCS is not so important. What we would like is for import declaration via JETRAS to be made possible as soon as possible.
(2) If the above measure is difficult to take, we want access to NACCS via importers' computer terminals for "import declaration" and "export declaration" to be made possible immediately and the use of NACCS to be free of charge as in the case of JETRAS.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
JETRAS is a system to process applications for export/import permits or approvals based on "the Foreign Exchange And Foreign Trade Law" (foreign exchange law) with computers.
JETRAS processes only applications for permits or approvals of export/import of controlled items and from controlled areas based on the foreign exchange law and does not process applications for export/import declarations based on the Customs Law.
JETRAS and NACCS are slated to be linked by the end of FY2002. However, the linkage is designed to make it possible for the customs office to conduct its endorsement business electronically to confirm that export/import permits or approvals are based on the foreign exchange law as part of its business to confirm the compliance of export/import declarations with other laws and ordinances.
The linkage of JETRAS and NACCS will make it possible to conduct endorsement business via JETRAS with the same computer terminals that customs brokers use in making export/import declarations via NACCS, and to make export/import declarations without bringing endorsed permits or approvals to the customs office in person.
Ministry of Finance
(1) JETRAS (Japan Electronic open network TRAde control System) is a system to process applications for export/import permits or approvals based on "the Foreign Exchange And Foreign Trade Law" (foreign exchange law) with computers. JETRAS processes only applications for permits or approvals of export/import of controlled items and from controlled areas based on the foreign exchange law and does not process applications for export/import declarations based on the Customs Law.
NACCS (Nippon Automated Cargo Clearance System) is a system to process export/import declarations and other customs clearance procedures and related private business with computers. Therefore, export/import declarations to customs office will be processed by NACCS.
(2) In the past, NACCS used dedicated terminals. But as a result of changes of the Sea-NACCS system in October 1999 and of the Air-NACCS in October 2001, it has become possible to conduct business with general terminals (personal computers) owned by users. We are now studying utilizing the Internet in NACCS.
However, since the operation expenses for NACCS are paid with user fees collected from customs and private users, it is difficult to make the use of the system via the Internet free, although the fee may be reduced by slashing network costs.
5. Remarks
The complainant accepted this policy.
8. Others
8-(1) International harmonization of verification testing methods for mutagenic properties of glutalaldehyde
1. Complainant: U.S. Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
3. Complaint:
According to the guidelines in foreign countries (the U.S. and European countries) and the OECD, "mutagenic property test" refers to testing both in vitro (relatively easy tests conducted in test tubes) and in vivo (comprehensive tests on living organisms), making a comprehensive judgement on the basis of the results of the two tests, and classifying substances in accordance with the strength of their mutagenic properties.
On the other hand, under the guidelines based on the Industrial Safety and Health Law and used by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (formerly the Ministry of Labour), the presence or absence of mutagenic properties is determined based only on the result of in vitro testing and no classification in accordance with the strength of mutagenic properties is made. Chemical substances evaluated as having mutagenic properties are specified as "handle-with-care" substances. As a results, some of the chemical substances that are found to be negative (having no mutagenic properties) in mutagenic property tests conducted in foreign countries (the United States and European countries), like glutalaldehyde, are found to be positive (having mutagenic properties) in tests conducted according to the guideline for mutagenic property tests based on the Industrial Safety and Health Law and announced as such, resulting in unfair discrimination of glutalaldehyde in the market.
Accordingly, the mutagenic property test based on the Industrial Safety and Health Law should be considered separately from screening tests and harmonized with the testing methods in foreign countries. Specifically, a system should be established to delete the chemical substances that had been found to "have mutagenic properties" in mutagenic property tests based on the Industrial Safety and Health Law from the list of chemical substances "having mutagenic properties," when reliable tests results are made available, showing that the chemical substances are found to "have no mutagenic properties" in later in-vivo tests conducted in Japan or other countries.
(Second complainant)
(1) For the following two reasons, we believe that it is necessary to establish a process to delete the substances listed as having mutagenic properties from the list when more reliable data are made available.
1) Judging from the descriptions in the "OECD Chemical Test Guidelines/ p3503, Introduction to OECD Test Guidelines for Toxicity Tests and Manual for Testing Selection and Application," it is unreasonable to uniformly use in vitro tests as a guideline for the protocol to investigate the mutagenic properties of chemical substances, as done by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. It is true that the guideline appears to support the ministry's method, saying in one section, "As described above, although the protocol for in vitro tests has been compromised due to testing composition, we can get reliable results on almost all chemical substances by using the protocol." However, in another section, the guideline says, "However, with regard to the interpretation of the results, paying attention to the effects caused by the composition of chemical substances is very important when determining the appropriateness of the protocol for testing the chemical substances in question.
2) With regard to "6. How should tests actually be utilized?," the guideline says, "However, since there are many tests that are generally used for mutagenic properties, many systems have been developed with regard to the method for testing chemical substances. They are divided into two groups for convenience's sake. That is to say, a continuous or gradual method and a pre-determined combination method. The gradual method consists of logical arrangement of tests and usually starts with two or three in vitro tests and goes on to in vitro and/or in vivo tests in the second stage. In most of the cases, which one to choose is determined by the results of the first test. The second method consists of a combination of pre-determined in vitro and in vivo tests that are to be carried out at the same time. The basic data obtained in these tests are to be investigated comprehensively. The results of mutagenic property tests should be investigated in combination with other data obtained in toxicity tests and medical dynamics studies." This passage of the guideline to the effect that tests should be carried out step by step and that results should be investigated comprehensively is consistent with our assertion made in the previous complaint. Our assertion was that "a system should be established to delete the chemical substances that had been found to "have mutagenic properties" in mutagenic property tests based on the Industrial Safety and Health Law from the list of chemical substances "having mutagenic properties," when reliable tests results are made available, showing that the chemical substances are found to "have no mutagenic properties" in later in-vivo tests conducted in Japan or any other country. Our proposal is more in line with the OECD guideline. Accordingly, we again want to ask for a review of the system.
(2) With regard to the response of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare that "(the ministry) cannot change (its treatment of the chemical substances that are found to have mutagenic properties) unless they are solidly proved to have no carcinogenic properties for human being," we want to know how the ministry is treating the results of carcinogenic tests of many chemical substances conducted on many animals.
(3) What efforts are being made by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in order to enhance the reliability of the entire test results on the chemical substances listed as substances having mutagenic properties? For example, does the ministry conduct in vivo tests? Does it make efforts to obtain and study the highly reliable, useful information that is being published? With regard to substances whose evaluation has been published in various forms (in list form, etc.), doesn't the ministry take any measures at all to delete such substances from the list?
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
In the current hazard-assessment testing system, two kinds of tests, one for mutagenic properties using microorganisms (in vitro) and the other for chromosomal abnormalities using mammal cell cultures (in vitro), are conducted based on Article 57-5 of the Industrial Safety and Health Law in order to screen substances for carcinogenic properties. The results of these two hazard-assessment tests determine the presence or absence of mutagenic properties. In view of the fact that many carcinogenic chemicals are found to have strong mutagenic properties in the two kinds of tests, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announces the substances found to have strong mutagenic properties in the two kinds of tests in order to protect workers from damage to their health, and guidance concerning manufacturing and handling methods is given.
The "Introduction to OECD Test Guidelines for Toxicity Tests and Manual for Testing Selection and Application" contains description supporting the combination of the two kinds of tests above as a method that can detect most of the potential mutagenic substances and carcinogenic substances having hereditary toxicity.
We cannot change our treatment of the chemical substances that are found to have mutagenic properties in the above two tests simply on the grounds of the results of in vivo tests for mutagenic properties, unless they are conclusively proved to have no carcinogenic properties for human beings.
With regard to glutalaldehyde in particular, the evaluation of its carcinogenic properties for human beings has yet to be made by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) Tests for mutagenic properties using microorganisms (in vitro) and for chromosomal abnormalities using mammal cell cultures (in vitro) based on Article 57-5 of the Industrial Safety and Health Law are conducted in order to screen substances for carcinogenic properties. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announces the substances that have been found to have strong mutagenic properties in the two kinds of tests in order to protect workers from damage for their health, and guidance concerning manufacturing and handling methods is given
As stated above, the system is designed to investigate as many chemical substances with carcinogenic properties as possible in order to see if administrative measures are necessary to protect workers handling the substances in question from damage to their health, by screening substances for carcinogenic properties in a simple and easy method.<
The "Introduction to OECD Test Guidelines for Toxicity Tests and Manual for Testing Selection and Application" contains description supporting the combination of the two kinds of tests above as a method that can detect most of the potential mutagenic substances and carcinogenic substances that have hereditary toxicity.
As to how to use mutagenic property tests, it is described in "6. How tests should actually be utilized?" of the "Introduction to OECD Test Guidelines for Toxicity Tests and Manual for Testing Selection and Application" cited by the complainant. However, from the standpoint of investigating substances having carcinogenic properties and protecting workers from damage for their health, we cannot change our treatment of the chemical substances that are found to have mutagenic properties in the above two tests simply on the grounds of the results of in vivo tests for mutagenic properties, as they are yet to be solidly proved to have no carcinogenic properties for human being and as the evaluation of carcinogenic properties for human being has yet to be made by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
(2) Since substances that are found to have carcinogenic properties in animal tests cannot be ruled out as not having carcinogenic properties for human being, we have designated such substances as those that may cause cancer or other serious damage to workers' health and announce the chemical substances in question to protect workers from damage for their health based on the opinions of experts.
(3) The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has been collecting data on harmful substances through animal tests for carcinogenic properties and reproductive, developmental toxicity of the harmful substances that were reported in Japanese and foreign literature, including the substances on which the ministry has conducted tests for mutagenic properties using microorganisms and for chromosomal abnormalities using mammal cell cultures. And based on the test results and data, the ministry sets guidelines to protect workers from damage to their health.
5. Remarks
The complainant is now examining the matter.