| OTO No. | 669 | Classification | MOF-2 MHLW-11 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | August 27, 2004 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Cabinet Office |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of Finance Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare |
Related Laws | Customs Law Food Sanitation Law |
| Complainant | Domestic firm | Exporting Countries | USA |
| Subject | Clarification of inspection standards at customs clearance | ||
| Description of Complaint |
1.Inspection was required in undergoing customs clearance for importing smokers from the United States in contrast with a previous time when the complainant imported the products of the same kind. 2. The importer had to bear expenses for taking the cargo to be inspected out of the warehouse and transferring it to the inspection site, and it cost about \23,000 for the cargo, which is worth \1 million. The complainant cannot accept that importers have to pay these expenses. In addition, when the complainant asked customs to introduce carriers to transfer the cargo, the customs official introduced only one company. The complainant wonders if there is a mechanism in which the implementation of inspection will benefit some companies but will disadvantage importers. 3.Although the complainant received the explanation that inspection was necessary because customs officials had never seen the products before, the complainant hopes that clear standards are shown because the above-mentioned expenses are necessary in the case of conducting inspection. 4. Moreover, although importers have to file a notification with the quarantine station before import, the quarantine station is not located at the customs clearance site and it is inconvenient for importers to go there. Therefore, a branch office should be established near customs, as in the case of the Kansai International Airport. The situation lacking lateral collaboration should be alleviated, including the necessity of filing separate notifications to each ministry. | ||
| Details of Measures |
(A reply from the Ministry of Finance) For fair collection of customs duties and prevention of illegal import of drugs, guns and other socially evil goods, customs conducts inspection of import cargoes as needed according to the provision of Article 67 of the Customs Law to confirm that goods described in an import declaration and the actual goods are identical. In determining whether to conduct inspection, customs makes a decision after comprehensive consideration of the name of product, price, source country and other matters declared with respect to the cargo subject to the import declaration as well as various kinds of information that customs obtains as needed. Moreover, determination standards are not clearly specified because clear specification of the standards will cause avoidance of inspection and will thus obstruct prevention of illegal import. The handling is not always the same even when the same kinds of cargoes are imported. Incidentally, those who intend to import cargoes have the obligation to undergo necessary inspection to get import permit in accordance with the provision of the above-mentioned Article 67 of the Customs Law (Permit for export or import). Consequently, exporters and importers have to bear expenses for taking necessary cargoes in the inspection site to undergo inspection. With respect to the fact that the customs official introduced only one carrier for transferring the cargo to the inspection site, the customs official introduced the carrier because the importer rushed to take back the cargo and asked the official to introduce some carriers. However, it is left to the importer's decision whether to ask the carrier to transfer the cargo. Therefore, there is no mechanism in which the "implementation of inspection will benefit some companies but will disadvantage importers." (A reply from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) In accordance with the provision of the Food Sanitation Law, those who intend to import food or other goods for sales or business purposes have to file a notification with the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare at the time of each import. For a notification of import of food or other goods, importers can file a notification (1) by mail, (2) by proxy submission through a customs broker or (3) by electronic application through FAINS (Food Automated Import Notification and Inspection System). Therefore, importers do not have to go directly to the counter of the quarantine station. In addition, quarantine stations accept notifications from seven days before the arrival of cargoes under the prior notification system. Notification certificates are issued before the carrying-in of cargoes if the cargoes are neither subject to inspection in the import declaration procedures for food or other goods nor are expected to cause food sanitation problems. Consequently, for the continued import of smokers as in this case, the importer may complete prior notification through exchange by mail and obtain a copy of the notification for which notification certificate was issued, before the arrival of the cargo. Moreover, there is also a liaison system, which is a liaison network among ministries and agencies involved in import procedures, including the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Under the system, a copy of a notification for which a notification certificate was issued is directly sent, at the request of an importer or others, by fax from the quarantine station counter, which receives import notifications for food or other goods, to the customs office with which the import declaration is filed. Thereby, import procedures have been expedited. | ||
| Classification of Processing | Cc | Directions | l-b |
| Remarks |
Ministry of Finance : A written reply was made on September 3, 2004. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare : A written reply was made on September 13, 2004. | ||