Provisional Translation
| OTO No. | 577 | Classification | MOF-104 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | August 5, 1998 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Economic Planning Agency |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of Finance | Related Laws | Customs Tariff Law |
| Complainant | Domestic firm | Exporting Countries | USA |
| Subject | Clarification of tariff classification for sugar content under the Customs Tariff Schedule for Class 20. | ||
| Details of Measures | Description of Complaint: 1. When dill pickles from the United States (with a sugar content of 0.45 percent) are imported, the Kobe Customs house has applied Customs Tariff Schedule 2001.10.200 "Other" (not containing sugar), since the sugar content is under 2 percent. 2. However, on June 18, 1998, tariff schedule 2001.10-100 "Containing added sugar" was suddenly applied, no matter how minute the amount of sugar contained, resulting in a higher tariff rate and unexpected losses to the complainant. The complainant believes that application standards and reasons for changing application standards should be made clear by documents and that if there is no practical reason for changing the standards, the usual tariff rate (applicable to products with sugar content of less than 2 percent) should be used. The ministry replied as follows: 1. Product classification of cargo is conducted according to the HS Code, and tariff classifications are further sub-divided by laws such as the Customs Tariff Law, as necessary. The Class 20 classification of processed vegetables and fruits is divided into "1. Containing added sugar" and "2. Others." under the Tariff Schedule. 2. Regarding this sub-division, the classification "1. Containing added sugar" does not include products which contain less than 2 percent sugar by weight, an amount which it is not unnatural to assume that vegetables and seasonings already contain. This application is made open by the documents summarizing examples of tariff classification. 3. In this case, the import documents were checked again and it appears that the product should be classified as "2. Others" in accordance with the examples of tariff classification. |
||
| Classification of Processing | A | Directions | I-b |
| Remarks | |||