| OTO No. | 609 | Classification | MOF-109 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | July 12, 2000 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) [JETRO] | |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of Finance | Related Laws | Customs Tariff Law | |
| Complainant | Domestic firm | Exporting Countries | Australia | |
| Subject | Review of customs tariff classification for food in airtight containers using new materials (technologies) | |||
| Description of Complaint | 1. In a bid to import diced yellow peaches and decolorized, deodorized pear juice in an airtight plastic container, the complainant requested the Tokyo Customhouse for prior instruction. Under current customs tariff classification rules, the Tokyo Customhouse replied that a product that uses five layers of polypropylene to secure airtightness cannot be identified as "food in an airtight container," but be classified as "others (2008. 70-299)" which is subject to a higher tariff. The customhouse explained that plastic containers had not been included in airtight containers because present new materials (containers) or technologies had not been developed, and technologies were immature at the time of establishment of the law. It also said that the old definitions had not yet been revised. In Europe and the United States, the product in question is identified as the food in an airtight container. The government should review the customs tariff classification for the food and treat it as the "food in an airtight container." (Second Opinion) 2. When the complainant offered data to the customhouse, the customhouse informed the complainant that the container is not recognized as airtight container, but a detailed explanation was not given. The container should be recognized as an airtight container since its oxygen transmitted is kept below the detection limit by attaching 5 layers of polypropylene instead of a metallic leaf layer. If the customhouse does not make such a judgment, it should reveal its investigation process. |
|||
| Details of Measures | The ministry replied as follows: 1. (1) The expression "food in an airtight container" in 2008. 70-291 on the Tariff Table was introduced by revising the past expression "canned, bottled and potted foods," when the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS Convention) was introduced in 1988. The classification has been designed for very airtight containers. Under the notice at the time of claim of the complaint, plastic film containers without metallic leaf seals are treated as not having air tightness. (2) The treatment of "foods in airtight containers" is not internationally unified under the HS Convention, but is left to be independently fixed by countries. Even if the treatment differs from one country to another, there is no problem. (3) Although the complainant has yet to submit technological data on the airtightness of the container in question, if the container is proven as airtight as plastic sheets with metallic leaf seals, it can be considered that the product in question should be classified as "food in an airtight container." Therefore, the ministry requests that the complainant provide the oxygen transmission rate and other technological data on the airtightness of the container in question and request the customhouse for prior instruction again. (Second Reply) 2. (1) The data related to oxygen transmission of the cap and lid of the container offered by the complainant was obtained by bringing actual samples to the domestic inspection organization and analyzing it there since the manufacturer of the container in question could not offer the relevant data as the data is an industrial secret. (2) About the container in question, there was not enough data, such as oxygen transmission rate, offered to determine the airtightness thereof, and in addition, the container was one with sealing strength that is not sufficient to consider the container as an airtight container. Therefore, the container was treated as that which cannot be considered airtight. (3) In order to further clarify customs tariff classification for containers of plastic film, the current notice was revised on June 20, 2001, and numeric criteria for airtight containers, based on the quotes of the Food Sanitation Law and the JAS, were made public. |
|||
| Classification of Processing | Cc | Directions | I-b | |
| Remarks |
A written reply was made on July 18, 2000. Deliberated at the 15th Grievance Resolution Committee on February 16, 2001. An additional written reply was made on July 16, 2001. |
|||