Problems relating to Trade and Investment on United States
9. Restrictive export/import trade, duty, and customs clearance |
|||
Issue |
Issue details |
Requests |
Reference |
| (1) High Import Duty Rates | - The U.S. tariffs on watches are quite complex due to the parallel use of ad valorem and fixed tariff rate. It makes difficult to calculate the average tariff rate. According to the estimate of Japan Clock & Watch Association, it is about 5% in average, while since 1983, the GOJ has imposed zero tariff on imports from the U.S. - Member firm desires to materialise reduce/repeal 4% customs duty on tires to enhance competitive price edge of its products. - GOU levies and collects customs duty on the following Japanese chemical products, while no duty from ROK: -- Phenol: 5.5% -- Acetone: 5.5% |
- It is requested that the GOU repeals tariff on watches as soon as possible. - It is requested that GOU reduces/repeals customs duty on tires. - Reduction / repeal of customs duty on chemical products manufactured in Japan. |
- The Tariff Act of 1930; and Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States - USA/ROK FTA |
| (Action) - In April 2007, the U.S. and ROK reached agreement on FTA, provided, however, that, its ratification is delayed at the Congresses of both governments. - In March 2012, the FTA between the U.S. and ROK (KORUS) came into force. - In July 2013, Japan joined the TPP negotiation. - On 5 October 2015, TPP was agreed in principle, and signed on 4 February 2016. As regards trade on goods between Japan and the U.S.: (1)Automobile parts (the going tariff rates of mainly 2.5%): Agreed to repeal tariff immediately on 80% or more of the products, while tariffs on tires (at the going tariff rates of 3.4%-4%) will be repealed in the 10th year. (2)Passenger vehicle (at the going tariff rate of 2.5%) will begin reduction starting from the 15th year, halved in the 20th year, reduced to 0.5% in the 22nd year, until fully repealed in the 25th year). (3)Effectuation of the immediate repeal of tariffs on more than 99% of home electric appliances, industrial machinery, chemicals. (4)Wrist watches: Agreed to repeal immediately tariffs (going 40 cents each + 8.5% on the case + 14% on the strap, band or bracelet + 5.3% on the battery, etc.) (5)Organic chemicals: Agreed to repeal immediately tariffs (the going tariff rates of 1%-6.5%, 0.5 cent/kg, etc.) |
|||
| (Improvement) - GOU repealed Import tariffs on ITA related IT machinery & equipment in January 2001. - GOU reduced to 0% the tariff rate on carbide tool. |
|||
| (2) Complexity in Import Duty Calculation Formula | - The calculation method for the import duty on watches is complex: (1)The GOU establishes the tariff rates on watches individually by parts: movement, case, band, etc. While the fixed tariff amounts are applied to movements, the fixed tariff rates are applied to other parts. (2)The U.S. ITC Report on Simplification of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the U.S. released in March 1999 continues to rely upon 8-digit-classification method and, not harmonised into 6-digit classification. It retains classification by size, and price. The fixed amount import duty on movements is not simplified. |
- It is requested that the GOU streamlines the tariff rates so that fixed rates are levied on the finished watches. | - The Tariff Act of 1930; Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States |
| (Action) - At the 2002-2005 Japan-U.S. Deregulation Initiative talks, Government of Japan (GOJ) requests GOU to streamline the import procedures for complete units of clocks and watches by classifying them under an across-the-board 6-digit HS code, rather than accumulating the tariff amounts for individual components. In December 2005, the same request is made by GOJ at Japan-U.S. Trade Forum. The Japan-U.S. Deregulation Initiative Report of June 2004 expressly states: the U.S. is aware of the problem, and the U.S. will continue discussions with GOJ. On the other hand, in the WTO Trade Policy Review in June 2008, GOU states it is unable to agree that the tariff scheme is excessively complicated in answer to GOJ's request for improvement. The contentions of both parties continue to run in parallel. (Quoted from the Report) "Import Tariff Calculation Method and Labeling Requirements of Origin for Clocks and Watches: The Government of the United States recognizes the concerns of the Government of Japan regarding tariffs and labeling requirements for clocks and watches. The Government of the United States will continue to discuss with the Government of Japan regarding these issues, taking full account of the position held by the Government of Japan concerning a review of the U.S. tariff schedule and labeling requirements as well as discussions underway at the WTO." - In October 2009, GOJ requested GOU to resolve as soon as possible the complexity and opacity of the tariff calculation method for clocks at Japan-U.S. Trade Forum. |
|||
| (3) International Gaps of HS Code Classification on Supply Goods | - The U.S. & the EU impose the different tariffs on consumable goods such as toner / ink cartridge for printers, multi-purpose equipment, etc., because of the different interpretation of the HS Classification Code. While they are duty free in the U.S., the EU imposes certain tariff rate. | - It is requested that the GOJ approaches the GOE and the GOU toward unification of applicable HS Classification Code on consumable goods, and - It is requested that the GOJ approaches the GOE and the GOU to incorporate them into the expanded items list of the ITA products. |
|
| (4) Illegal Nature of Zeroing Methodology in Antidumping Regulations | - In December 2004, GOJ filed the request for consultation with GOU and the Dispute Settlement Body, stating the "zeroing" by which GOU treats transactions with negative dumping margins as having margins equal to zero for purposes of determining the weighted-average dumping in its antidumping investigation at artificially high price level is in violation of WTO AD Rules. WTO Appellate Body frequently found the U.S. violation of AD Agreement. However, the corrective measures by the GOU have been insufficient. On 20 May 2009, the GOU appealed on the Japan-the U.S. dispute case to WTO Appellate Body. The Appellate Body Report, released on 18 August 2009, totally upholds the Japanese contention. On 6 February 2012, the GOU signed Memorandum on Repeal of the Zeroing Methodology. On 14 February 2012, the U.S. DOC put up in Federal Register the review of antidumping calculation methodology, and on 18 June 2012, notified in Federal Register the revised calculation of Antidumping Margins without using the Zeroing Methodology. It resulted in amended dumping margins on some of the Japanese thin stainless steel plate products. |
- It is requested that the GOU thoroughly the implements the corrective measures. | - The Tariff Act of 1930; Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States - Proposed Antidumping Regulations - WTO WT/DS322/AB/RW Appellate Body Reports - Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act |
| (Action) - The Antidumping Act of 1916 (the 1916 Act) was found to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement by the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel. Its appeal in August 2000 by GOU was also dismissed. The Panel found that: injury test is missing (Article 6(1)); imposition of the treble damage and penalty are inconsistent with Article 6(2) of GATT; and that the procedural requirements are not met under Article 1, Article 4 and Article 5(5) of the Antidumping Agreement. - On February 11, 2000, Japan requested establishment of a panel to find that the specific anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States on hot-rolled steel from Japan are inconsistent with various provisions of the new AD Agreement, in respect of, among others, determination of injury, calculation of the antidumping margin, and investigation procedures. On March 20, Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") established a Panel, and in February 2001, the Panel Report was released. It found inconsistency with the AD Agreement, partially in support of the GOJ's position, in respect of: "facts available", which was arbitrarily employed in determining the "all others rate", the calculation method of dumping margins employed for industry other than those subject to the antidumping proceedings, and the calculation method for the domestic price in the exporting country. - The U.S. appealed on the foregoing the Panel decision. Report of the Appellate Body ("AB") was released on July 24, 2001, upholding the Panel's decision on some of the Japanese allegations: -- AB upheld the Panel's finding that the Department of Commerce calculated unduly high dumping margins using an arbitrary calculation methodology; -- AB found that the methodology employed by ITC in determining the degree of injury to the U.S. industry is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement; -- AB set aside, however, the Japan's requests concerning: 1) the revocation of the antidumping measures against the respondents and 2) the refund of dumping duties imposed. - In the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform Initiative of October 2001, GOJ requested GOU not to apply the method to calculate antidumping margins, and the method to determine injury, both of which are finally found by the Appellate Body to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. - In the 2002 WTO Inconsistency Report, Japan pointed out that the deductible items from the domestic sales on constructed export price (CEP offset) might, depending upon its application, artificially inflate the domestic price. Japan urged that a clear, precise definition is given as regards adjustment of profits in the context of calculating normal value. Japan urged the U.S. that it should correct treatment of goods for next process in determining injury; analysis of the causal relationship between injury and dumping; arbitrary expansion of the scope of the subject products to include later developed products; and the zeroing issues. - On 15 August 2002, the U.S. Commerce Department announced its new proposal to invite public comment. According to this new proposal, if the average selling price between the related parties is within the range of 98% to 102% of the selling price to unrelated parties, such transaction between the related parties may be regarded as "ordinary trade" and used in determining normal value. - Since the WTO DSB disconfirmation of the U.S. position, the U.S. has endeavored to observe the WTO finding in the context of the 1916 Act, including the bill to repeal the Act. However, to this date, no significant progress has been made. - WTO DSB disconfirmed the use of "zeroing" in calculating the antidumping margin between the weighted average export price and the weighted average normal value, at its conference in March 2001. - Commissioner Pascal Lamy of the EC in March 2003 accused the U.S. for the repeated failures and delays in observing the WTO DSB findings, including without limitation, the repeal of the Antidumping Act of 1916. The US Trade Representative Robert Zoelick and some Congressmen committed themselves that the U.S. would observe the WTO findings including introduction of a new bill to repeal the Antidumping Act of 1916. - The 2003 WTO Inconsistency Report claims that the "zeroing" is an unfair calculation method, whose employment requires a closer attention in the future. In the absence of concrete response from GOU at the consultations between Japan and U.S. in December 2004, GOJ filed in February 2005 a request with WTO DSB to set up a Panel. - EU requested a WTO DSB's consultation on the unfair use by the U.S. of zeroing in calculating the antidumping margin. - In January 2004, EU published Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2003 of December 15, 2003 protecting against the effects of the application of the 1916 Act, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom. - In May 2004, the jury of District Court of Iowa returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff awarding treble damages in the amount of US$31,619,847 in a case involving a Japanese large newspaper printing presses manufacturer pursuant to the 1916 Act. (This case is currently under appeal). However, since the 1916 Act is immune to the retroactive application, it remains valid as to the cases involving a large newspaper printing presses manufacturer and outboard engine manufacturers. - In October 2004 at the Japan-U.S. Regulatory Reform Initiative under the "Japan-U.S. Economic Partnership for Growth (Partnership)" GOJ expressed its regret to the continuation by the GOU of the 1916 Act, the zeroing method, and Byrd Amendment and urged GOU to repeal all of these. - In December 2004, Japan implemented "Special Measures Law concerning the obligations to return profits gained in connection with the 1916 Act" to relieve Japanese enterprises damaged by the 1916 Act. - Urging that the U.S. rectifies the Zeroing Methodology, GOJ filed request for bilateral talk based on WTO DSR, etc. and in February 2005, filed request with DSB to set up the Panel, which was subsequently set up. In January 2007, WTO DSB Panel ruled that the Zeroing Methodology is inconsistent with WTO Agreement recommending the U.S. to correct its measures to make them consistent with the WTO Agreement. - On 18 April 2006, in response to the EU complaint, the Appellate Body found that use of methodology to compare weighted average to weighted average in the original investigation and the use of zeroing method in administrative reviews are inconsistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement. - On 11 October 2006, Japan appealed the Panel's (under Panel Report circulated on 20 September 2006) that zeroing was not prohibited after the decision of AD measures. Appellate Body circulated its Report WTO DISPUTE DS322 in January 2007, finding that methodology is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement throughout the Antidumping Procedures in their entirety, accepting Japanese contention in its entirety. - In January 2007, the Appellate Body Report determined that the Zeroing Methodology is inconsistent with WTO Agreement in the entire antidumping proceedings, including the periodical reviews. It also ruled that the decision based on the past rulings employing the Zeroing Methodology is inconsistent with WTO Agreement. - The new negotiating texts, issued on 30 November 2007 by the Chair on the Negotiating Group on Rules, confines prohibition of zeroing only to W-W method, while approving it under the T-T, and W-T methods, subject to regular review. In opposition to these texts, 20 countries including Japan, Brazil, PRC and India submitted an alternative text that totally prohibits the zeroing. However, the revised text by the Chair promulgated in December 2008 did not include the clause on the Zeroing Methodology. - On 10 January 2008, Japan applied for approval to implement countermeasures of the same scale as damages incurred through zeroing, which totals $248.5 million for the U.S. failure to take corrective action past the due date of the DSB Recommendation, namely, 24 December 2007. - Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS/322ABRW) (a procedure in confirmation of the U.S. compliance with Appellate Body's Recommendations) was released on 18 August 2009. The Appellate Body upholds the (First Court) Panel's findings that totally support the GOJ's contentions, and reconfirms that the U.S. has not discontinued zeroing methodology which is not consistent with the WTO Agreement and that the U.S. has not discharged its obligation to execute the WTO Recommendations. - On 20 May 2009, the U.S. appealed on the Japan-U.S. disputes and as a result on 18 August 2009, to Appellate Body Report was promulgated, totally approving the Japanese contentions. - In February 2010, Japan and EU applied for WTO's approval on invocation of retaliatory measures against the U.S. that would not repeal the Zeroing Methodology by amendment of its Antidumping Regulation itself. - Upon GOU's objection to the Appellate Body's recommendation (WTO AB Report of January 2007) for correction, finding that GOU's Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement throughout the U.S. Antidumping Proceedings has been referred to arbitration. It so happened that Japan, in February 2011, filed application for Retaliatory Measures against the U.S. for its failure to fully execute the WTO Recommendation, to which the U.S. undertook to take corrective action, which undertaking has temporarily suspended the arbitration. On the other hand, the U.S. contrived to let The Rules Negotiations Chair Guillermo Valles Galmes (The WTO Doha Development Agenda Negotiations) release a draft modalities paper on November 30, 2007 that included language allowing almost across-the-board the use of zeroing in certain antidumping (AD) calculations. - Department of Commerce (DOC) in Federal Register of 28 December 2010 notified Proposed Amendment of Antidumping Regulations to repeal application of the Zeroing Methodology for calculating Antidumping Duties, which was found to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement, inviting Public Comment. Japan Machinery Center for Investment and Trade (JMCTI) submitted its comment by referring to GOU's obligation to execute the WTO Appellate Body's Recommendation on the U.S. Antidumping Measures as regards (1) Administrative Review, (2) Review of new exporters, and (3) repeal of Zeroing under the Sunset Review. It requested that non-use of the Zeroing Methodology in any of these three antidumping measures should be expressly stipulated in the Antidumping Regulations. - In July 2011, WTO Panel found that the U.S. Antidumping Measures on certain shrimp from Vietnam are inconsistent with the provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel Decision upholds substantially (but not all) of the Vietnamese contentions arising from the U.S. DOC Administrative Review of the Antidumping Measures. While the WTO Appellate Body's Decision is already handed down holding that the use of zeroing is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement, the Panel decision in this case follows this Appellate Body Decision. - In March 2011, at the Japan-USA Economic Harmonisation Dialogue, Japan Side presented to U.S. Side: "U.S. Side secures the expeditious and complete execution of the WTO Recommendation prohibiting the use of zeoroing", as a matter of concern from Japan Side. - In February 2012, GOU signed "Memorandum" between Japan and the U.S. Toward repeal of zeroing. GOU amended the Ministry of Commerce Regulation in pursuance of Memorandum. - In August 2012, in accordance with the corrective measures under re-planning of the amended U.S. Department of Commerce Regulation on anti-dumping duty deposit for thin stainless steel plate from Japan, GOJ revoked its application seeking approval for taking the countermeasures. - On 29 August 2013, ROK filed request for WTO Consultation on Korean made large washing machines, on the alleged the U.S. use of the Zeroing Methodology in the context of Antidumping Investigation. - On 9 May 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) solicited public comment on its use of differential pricing analysis methodology in the target anti-dumping investigation, in which the DOC continued to use the zeroing methodology. JMCTI submitted its comment in June 2014, pointing out "the technical issues resulting from the active use of the method called differential pricing analysis will broaden the room for the active invocation of the zeroing methodology". |
|||
| (Improvement) - In December 2004, the U.S. President signed the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (H.R. 1047) (Public Law 108-429) repealing the 1916 Act. - On January 16, 2007, U.S. Department of Commerce announced repeal of zeroing procedure in the original Antidumping Investigations. - On 6 February 2012, GOU agreed on the Memorandum toward Settlement of Disputes on the Long Outstanding Controversy over the Zeroing Methodology (TZM) with Japan, along with its commitment to repeal TZM in its Antidumping Investigation. Pursuant to this Japan-U.S. Memorandum, DOC undertook to repeal TZM by publishing (in the Federal Register dated 28 December 2010) "Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings Proposed Rule; A Proposed Rule by the International Trade Administration Modification; Request For Comments" in order to repeal TZM within 7-days after signing the Memorandum. - On 14 February 2012, DOC published in Federal Register: "This Final Rule and Final Modification for Reviews, Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification" for the purpose of repealing TZM. "This Final Rule and Final Modification" entered into force on 16 April 2012. - In August 2012, pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Japan, Japan withdrew its request for authorization from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to take retaliatory measures and to suspend the application of concessions (DS322). Japan will continue to watch, if the U.S. repeals its Zeroing Practice, without fail, under the new U.S. Regulation. - In March 2014, the U.S. anti-dumping duty levy on ball bearings and parts from Japan involving the disputes over the zeroing methodology was repealed (voiding the anti-dumping measures retroactive to 15 September 2011). |
|||
| (5) Targeted Dumping | - The GOU's abuse of "Target Dumping provisions", i.e., the 2nd sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement, is a matter for concern. In December 2008, GOU withdrew the Bill on the Methodology to Determine Target Dumping on which it sought public comment in Federal Register of May 2008. After the withdrawal of the Bill, it appears no new investigation employing the target dumping methodology has been initiated. However, it remains a matter of concern in respect of the system, and the procedural transparency. (It could be a seedbed for the arbitrary implementation.) | - It is requested that GOJ continues to enquire about the methodology Ministry of Commerce employs in determining the Target Dumping. | |
| (Action) - In Federal Register (FR) of October 25, 2007, DOC sought public comment on Targeted Dumping (TD) for determining injury caused by dumping, which is provided in WTO Antidumping Agreement as an exceptional measure. Two days prior to the publication in FR, DOC applied TD for the first time to determine injury on antidumping proceeding concerning Coated Free Sheet Paper (CFS) from Republic of Korea (ROK). DOC "requests comments and suggestions on what guidelines, thresholds, and tests it should use in determining whether targeted dumping is occurring", and ''what would be the appropriate statistical techniques to use to show targeted dumping"... "given the DOC's limited experience with targeted dumping allegations and analysis and certain undefined terms in the statute and regulations." - By Federal Register of May 9, 2008, DOC announced the second request for public comment on the specific draft methodology. This methodology for determining TD replaces the 2007 proposal of 2% price gap test, and adopts more stringent standard deviation test and the average price gap (weighted by sales value) test. - Department of Commerce (DOC) in Federal Register of 28 December 2010, released proposal for amending anti-dumping regulations to repeal application of the zeroing methodology, found to be in violation of WTO agreement, soliciting public comment. On this issue, JMCTI submitted its comment, after first referring to GOU's obligations to repeal the zeroing methodology in (1) administrative reviews, (2) new shipper reviews, and (3) sunset reviews, stating "repeal of zeroing methodology in all 3-Anti-dumping reviews should be expressly written into the U.S. anti-dumping regulations." - On 29 August 2013, ROK requested WTO consultation on the GOU's use of zeroing methodology in determining target dumping on large washing machine from South Korea (LRW). WTO panel was established on 22 January 2014 on use of zeroing methodology in anti-dumping investigation. (dispute settlement: dispute DS464 United States--anti-dumping and countervailing measures on LRW from Korea). - On 22 April 2014, International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC) promulgated in Federal Register its Final Ruling on Targeted Dumping, affirming its continued non-application of the Targeted Dumping Ruling, rescinded in December 2008. - On 9 May 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) solicited public comment on its use of differential pricing analysis methodology in the target anti-dumping investigation, in which the DOC continued to use the zeroing methodology. JMCTI submitted its comment in June 2014, pointing out "the technical issues resulting from the active use of the method called differential pricing analysis will broaden the room for the active invocation of the zeroing methodology". |
|||
| (6) Abuse of Antidumping Petitions | - GOU currently levies antidumping duties of 30.8% on Japanese large diametre welded line pipe, and general piping/pressure piping, and seamless steel piping (107.8% on large diametre and 106.7% on small diametre). While sunset reviews took place in 2012 and 2013 on seamless steel piping and large diametre steel piping, respectively, it was decided to continue the antidumping duty levy. This decision has not only driven out member firm from transactions with American purchasers, they now face conundrum, having to continue purchasing products in lesser quality from other countries, at prices higher than the international market prices or, while the salient concern remains over the safety of the U.S. pipelines. Especially as regards 'steel pipe for Alaska' LNG project (expected demand, amounting to approx. 600k tons/70 billion yen), the consortium (purchaser, comprising of TransCanada, Exxon Mobile, BP, ConocoPhillips, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation) has expressed its high expectation for supply from Japan of the quality welded line pipe, however, with one proviso, which is revocation of antidumping finding, or exclusion of "the products with the subject specifications" from the antidumping duty order: welded large diameter line pipe from Japan. - On 12 November 2013, the DOC released Preliminary Determination of Dumping in the Antidumping Proceedings on Nickel Plated Steel Plate (the Investigation initiated on 27 March 2013.) On 19 November 2013, in the Antidumping Investigation on Directional Electromagnetic Steel Plate, ITC made a Preliminary Injury Determination (after initiating the investigation on 18 September 2013). On 2 December 2013, in the Antidumping Investigation on Non-Directional Electromagnetic Steel Plate, ITC made a Preliminary Injury Determination (after initiating the investigation on 30 September 2013). - On 2 May 2014, ITC made its final affirmative determination of injury on nickel plated steel sheet from Japan, deciding its anti-dumping duty levy measures. - On 6 November 2014, ITC made its final affirmative determination of injury on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, deciding its anti-dumping duty levy measures. |
- It is requested that GOU repeals the antidumping duties. | - Antidumping legislation - Various legislations concerning antidumping measures. |
| (Action) - GOJ requested at the WTO to work aggressively on clarification and reinforcement of disciplines. - GOJ requested at the Japan-U.S. Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative of the U.S.-Japan Economic Partnership for Growth that GOU should carefully refrain from the abuse of the antidumping regulations with the intent of protectionism. - In August 2001, both WTO Dispute Settlement Panel and Appellate Body found that the United States Anti-Dumping Measures decided in June 1999 On Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products From Japan are inconsistent with WTO Agreement, recommending that the United States bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under those Agreements. However, to this date, the U.S. has failed to execute this recommendation in full. - At the Japan-U.S. Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy Initiative held in October 2004, GOJ requested GOU to advisedly implements its Antidumping Procedure in the manner compatible with the WTO Agreement, and refrains from its abusive implementation with the intent of protectionism. - Recent imposition of Antidumping Duties (AD) on steel products: -- On 22 February 1995, AD was imposed on stainless steel bar (from 4 countries including Japan). Continuation of AD levy was decided on 2006.12.04 at the 2nd Review. -- On 18 June 1996, AD was imposed on clad steel (from Japan). Continuation of AD imposition was decided on 2007.02.20 at the 2nd Review. -- On 7 July 1999, AD and CVD was imposed on stainless steel sheet (from Japan, ROK, Taiwan, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Mexico). Continuation of AD levy was decided on 2005.06.21. 2011.08.11: Continuation of AD levy was determined at the 2nd Review. -- On 1 September 1998, AD was imposed stainless steel wire (from Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Sweden, Spain and Italy). Continuation of AD levy was decided on 2004.07.08, and on 2010.06.17, Continuation of AD levy was determined at the 2nd Review. -- On 26 June 2000, AD was levied on medium diameter seamless steel pipe (from Japan and Mexico). 2006.04.06: Continuation of AD levy was decided. -- On 26 June 2000, AD was levied on small diameter seamless steel pipe (from Japan, Romania, Czech, and South Africa). 2006.04.06: Continuation of AD levy was decided. 2011.10.11: Continuation of AD levy was decided at the 2nd Review. -- On 28 August 2000, AD was levied on tin plate from Japan. Continuation of AD levy was decided on 2006.06.13. -- On 6 December 2001, AD was levied on large diameter line pipe (from Japan and Mexico). 2007.10.02: Continuation of AD levy was decided. - On 7 November 2012, the U.S. ITC ordered Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China. The ITC notified the DOC of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found material injury with respect to solar cells from the PRC. It is expected that the DOC levies antidumping duty of about 250% maximum, and Countervailing Duty of about 16%. - On March 17, 2015, the United States submitted a short paper to the informal group on anti-circumvention of the WTO's committee on circumvention, criticizing the private-sector use of professional services to evade the application of antidumping duties. - On 24 September 2015, The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) made preliminary affirmative determination of anti-dumping duty on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, and preliminary affirmative determination of countervailing duty on the products from Brazil, ROK, and Turkey. - On 15 March 2016, The U.S. Department of Commerce made preliminary affirmative determination of anti-dumping duty on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. |
|||
| (Improvement) - On 23 February 2006, the U.S. ITC decided to revoke the antidumping measures against structural steel products for construction from Japan and South Korea that had been imposed since June 2000, concluding that no material injury on domestic industry would result any longer from these imports. |
|||
| (7) Sunset Review under Antidumping Proceedings | - As affairs now stand, GOU's Sunset Review is dictated by the ground rule of "Order continues in principle, and revoked in exceptional cases" under the relative laws and regulations, internal rules and in their implementation. Thus, in reality, antidumping measures are not revoked over five-years and prolonged imposition of Antidumping Duty continues. - On 22 February 1995, Antidumping Duty levied on Stainless Steel Bar (from 4-countries including Japan), Continued Levy decided by the 2nd and 3rd Sunset Reviews on 4 December 2006 and 17 July 2012, respectively. - On 18 June 1996, Antidumping Duty levied on Clad Steel Plate from Japan, continued levy decided by the 2nd and 3rd Sunset Reviews on 20 February 2007 and 15 January 2013, respectively. - On 7 July 1999, Antidumping Duty levied on Stainless Steel Thin Plate (from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Mexico)( marked here and the following also includes Countervailing Duty), continued levy decided by the 1st and 2nd Sunset Reviews on 21 June 2005 and 11 August 2011, respectively. - On 1 September 1998, Antidumping Duty levied on Stainless Steel Wire (from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Spain, Italy), continued levy decided by the 1st and 2nd Sunset Reviews on 8 July 2004 and 17 June 2010, respectively. - On 26 June 2000, Antidumping Duty levied on Middle Diametre Seamless Steel Pipe (from Japan and Mexico), continued levy decided by the 1st and 2nd Sunset Reviews on 6 April 2006 and 11 October 2011, respectively. - On 26 June 2000, Antidumping Duty levied on Small Diametre Seamless Steel Pipe (from Japan, Rumania, Czech, South Africa), continued levy decided by the 1st and 2nd Sunset Reviews on 6 April 2006 and 11 October 2011, respectively. - On 28 August 2000, Antidumping Duty levied on Tinplate (from Japan), continued levy decided by the 1st and 2nd Sunset Reviews on 13 June 2006 and 15 May 2012, respectively. - On 6 December 2001, Antidumping Duty levied on Large Diametre Welded Line Pipe (from Japan, Mexico). - On 2 October 2007, Antidumping Duty continued levy was decided. On 29 October 2013, at the 2nd Sunset Review, continued levy was decided. The antidumping measures against the Japanese steel products in the foregoing in many cases continue to this day, although some cases have been revoked. The revocation of antidumping measures take place only when the U.S. domestic industries show no interest for continuation of the measures or the U.S. petitioners participate in the Sunset Review, and ITC votes in favour of revocation. |
- It is requested that the GOU conducts its antidumping reviews in accordance with the WTO Antidumping Agreement. - It is requested that the GOU: -- conducts the sunset review pursuant to the principles set forth in the WTO Antidumping Agreement, and -- applies the GOJ's proposal at the WTO negotiation, namely, "the antidumping measures terminate after 8-years from the date of the first antidumping duty levy had been imposed." |
- WTO Antidumping Agreement (Article 11.3) |
| (Action) - The sunset provision incorporated into the new antidumping act of GOU is based on the premise that antidumping measures continue in principle and revocation is an exception in contravention of the WTO Antidumping Agreement. In January 2001 GOJ requested GOU to convene a bilateral consultation under WTO as regards the sunset review of antidumping measures on the surface treated steel sheet from Japan. In May 2005, a Panel was established and in August the Panel decided on the case, which was appealed to Appellate Body (AB) by GOJ. In December 2003, AB adjudicated that GOU decision could not be held as incompatible with WTO.- In October 2004 at the Japan-U.S Regulation Reform Initiative, GOJ requested that GOU should thoroughly examine the need for the continuation of antidumping measures and conduct its sunset review in strict conformance to the rules set out in the WTO Antidumping Agreement. - At the negotiation table of the DOHA Round on WTO rules, Japan and Canada submitted proposal to tighten the discipline on sunset review such as revocation of the antidumping measures in 5 years from the issuance of antidumping order, etc. - In November 2004, GOJ filed petition for consultation at WTO and in April 2005, the Panel was set up on issues concerning the practices of the Department of Commerce (DOC) on antidumping investigation including the sunset review. - Of the 12 sunset reviews made during 2006 on antidumping measures against Japan, 5 cases are revoked while 7 cases are continued. - After continued imposition of antidumping duty, the U.S. ITC revoked in February 2007 the AD measures by determining that the revocation would not result in the recurrence of injury to the U.S. industry, in response to the joint petition for revocation filed by the Japan and the U.S. automobile manufacturers. - On 30 November 2007, the Chair on the Negotiating Group on Rules issued the new negotiating text which among others includes "the Automatic Sunset clause" whereby the AD measure is terminated automatically in 10-years from the imposition of AD measures. The text includes a provision that facilitates reexamination within 2-years of termination to resume imposition of the AD measures. - On 17 December 2008, WTO Panel (for confirming implementation of rulings and recommendations) ruled on the U.S.-EU disputes concerning DS294 "United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities" concluding that the U.S. use of "zeroing methodology" in the sunset reviews of the Antidumping Order amounts to the failure to implement the rulings and recommendations of DSB (WTO's Dispute Settlement Board) of 2006. - In August 2008, antidumping measures on Large Newspaper Printing Presses were terminated on account of the U.S. domestic industry's withdrawal of the Sunset Review request. - In March 2011, at Japan-USA Economic Harmonisation Dialogue, Japan Side presented: "U.S. Side repeals prolonged antidumping measures to enable Japanese manufacturers to secure the benefit of export business and to exclude excessive burdens to the importers and the U.S. users", as a matter of concern to Japan Side. - On 15 May 2012, continued imposition of anti-dumping duty determined at the 2nd review on tin plate from Japan. - On 29 October 2013, U.S. Department of Commerce determined continuation of anti-dumping duty imposition on certain large diameter welded line pipe from Japan and Mexico. |
|||
| (8) Heavier Tariff Levied on Imported Parts | - Member Firm exports certain products to North American purchasers via its hub in North America. The recent resumption of antidumping levy (for example, on bearings related products) at a high rate materially affects profit and loss of the business in concern. | - It is requested that GOJ collects extensive information on all tariff rates in advance. | |
| (9) Monitoring on Steel Imports | - On 1 February 2003, the Department of Commerce (DOC) instituted Steel Import Monitoring on all imported steel products (including excluded countries and excluded items) subject to the safeguard measures. After repeal of Safeguard Measures in December 2003, DOC continued monitoring until establishment of new measures replacing this measure. On 5 December 2005, the DOC released the Final Rule for SIMA (Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis). The followings are the major outlines: Subject goods: All basic steel mill products (however, excluding coupling flange, stainless steel coupling flange, partially excluding cold formed steel, steel bar, secondary wire rod). -- The monitoring period: 5 December 2005 - 21 March 2009. -- Classification of Products subject to monitoring: Based on HTS Code 6 Digits -- Transactions subject to monitor: Not only export/import but also includes delivery/export. -- On items excluded from monitor, only import data separately is released. |
- It is requested that GOU streamlines the procedure. | |
| (Action) - On 1 February 2003, GOU monitors all items subject to safeguard measures (including the excluded countries and excluded items). GOU continues to monitor steel products after repeal in December 2003 of the safeguard measures, pending stipulation of an alternative new system. - GOU decided to maintain the "Steel Import Licensing and Monitoring System" until March 21, 2005 or otherwise DOC establishes a substitutable system. - Recommendations regarding Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy by GOJ includes among others: 1) GOU to ensure compatibility with the WTO rules "the Steel Import Licensing and Monitoring System (SILMS)", 2) GOU to ensure that SILMS does not constitute a new trade barrier, and 3) GOU refrains from expanding the scope of the subject goods to cover all steel products. |
|||
| (10) Rigorous/Veraciously Complex Origin Marking Regulations | - The GOU requires the Certificate of Origin not only the marking of the country in which the final production process takes place, but also the Certificate of Origin for raw materials and semi-processed products. - Country of Origin (COO) marking is required on every movement, case and band in accordance with the precise method specified in the relevant statutory requirement. This requirement is quite burdensome to watch manufacturers, etc. in production control, etc. |
- It is requested that the GOU restricts the Certificate of Origin marking requirement only to the country in which the final production process takes place. - It is requested that the GOU applies the COO Marking only on finished watches, with the method for COO Marking at the discretion of manufacturers, - It is requested that the GOU: -- follows "GOJ's Comment on U.S. ITC Report on Simplification of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the U.S.", -- applies COO Marking requirement only on finished products, and -- leaves the method for COO Marking at the discretion of manufacturers. |
- The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) - The Tariff Act of 1930 |
| (Action) - Following the comment by GOJ on "ITC's Proposed Simplification of The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.", Japanese industry requested GOU to accept the origin marked on finished products only, and to leave to the discretion of manufacturers the method of marking the origin. - GOJ requested GOU to improve, as soon as possible, the origin marking requirements of the U.S., which is forcing undue hardships on clock and watch manufacturers in their production management. - In the absence of any sign for improvement, GOJ requested at the Japan-U.S. Regulatory Reform Initiative that the U.S. streamlines its country of origin marking requirements. - In the WTO Trade Policy Review in June 2008, GOU stated, "It is unable to agree that the tariff scheme is excessively complicated" in answer to GOJ's request for improvement. Since then, during WTO Trade Policy Review on the U.S. held on 30 September and 1 October 2010, GOJ prompted GOU for improvement. Nevertheless, no improvement has materialised to this date. |
|||
| (Improvement) - 15 CFR Part 245, The Guides for Watch Industry is rescinded, obviating the need for marking the metal composition for each watchcase. - The origin marking is harmonized to the method stipulated in the Customs Act. - The use of indelible ink is formally approved as the method to provide the origin marking on imported watches. (H.R.435 Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Collection Act of 1999) |
|||
| (11) Increased Tariff Burden due to the Delay in Renewal of GSP | - Increased Tariff Burden due to the Delay in Renewal of GSP - Generalised System for Preferential Tariff (so called GSP) that exempts tariff on products imported from designated Developing Countries and Territories expired on 31 July 2013, without renewal to this date (as of 3 January 2014). More precisely, MFS imports products from Indonesia by incurring, in a sense, extraneous cost (several hundred million yen per annum). It remains uncertain "when the GSP renewal takes place (or never gets renewed)", and "if renewed, retroactive refund of tariff paid during the hiatus of GSP takes place". Importers' assumption of the tariff burden continues. |
- It is requested that the GOU: -- ensures there is no hiatus of GSP treatment at each renewal. -- determines in advance in the event of occurrence of expiry, provisional measures such as "renewal time", "retroactive measures", or at least provides a clear-cut information. |
-Generalized System Of Preferences - Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (H.R. 1295) |
| (Action) - The U.S. grants zero tariff imports over about 5,000 items to 131 countries/regions under the GSP Scheme. The amount of tariff so exempted represented 1.5% of the total U.S. imports, reaching more than USD31.7 billion (in 2008). - On 22 September 2011 the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 2832, a bill to retroactively renew, among others, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), granting import duty exemption on 4,800-items from 129 countries/areas. - On 31 July 2013, the U.S. Generalized System Of Preferences (GSP) expired. |
|||
| (Improvement) - On 29 July 2015, the U.S. Customs Border Protection, under H.R. 1295 "Renewal of GSP of 2015, reauthorizing the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)," reconvened acceptance of application for customs tariff exemption, extending GSP until 31 December 2017. - On 13 November 2015, USTR released a publicly identifying of 19-items, likely to exceed Competitive Needs Limit (CNL) (in the full year of 2015 and be excluded from preferences beginning 1 July 2016 under the graduation provisions of the U.S. GSP); extending until 4 December 2015, the deadline for acceptance of request for exclusion from the CNL application by interested parties. - On 11 January 2016, relative to Annual Review 2015/2016 of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) under auspices of USTR, set forth its review of 34-petitions, requesting change in the scope of products subject to GSP (addition of certain products to the list of GSP eligible products, exclusion from GSP application of the specified GSP eligible products of the specified GSP eligible country, exemption of the CNL application on certain imported products from the specified GSP beneficiary country). |
|||
| (12) Nebulous Merit of C-TPAT | - A member firm, a USCBP recognized C-TPAT-Certified Participant (CTCP), fails to see any distinctive merit of being certified as a CTCP, other than some kind of perhaps a corporate status to the public. USCBP's periodic on-site inspection made at random goes to the extent of involving exporters, with the resulting needs for rescheduling and assumption of traveling costs, etc. It is questionable if it is really worth all the pains. - Despite the increased internal expenses from acquisition of C-TPAT, involving auditing, documentation, etc., it is difficult to numerically express the benefit from acquisition of C-TPAT. |
- It is requested that USCBP clarifies the merit of being a CTCP. - It is requested that USCBP numerically explains the merit of C-TPAT acquisition (in terms of reduction in the requisite number of days, cost of customs clearance charges). |
- C-TPAT(Custom Trade Partnership Against Terrorism) |
| (Action) - Since the beginning of 2002, the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) has implemented the Supply Chain Security Initiative against Terrorism. USCS has invited enterprises to participate in the C-TPAT program, executed the Smart Border Initiative, such as Container Security Initiative (CSI), increased installation of non-contact inspection equipment such as X-ray and Gamma-ray Inspection Equipment at US harbors and airports, and the FAST Program at the Canadian Border. From December 2002, it has started "The 24-Hour Rule", that requires 24-hours advance cargo declarations for vessels sailing from foreign ports into the United States. Effective as of 1 February 2003, the full-fledged enforcement of the programs has begun. - On May 2002, GOU published its plan to select 40-importer-accounts and to conduct its Initial Test of ACE, in pursuance of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP). Only PE's are qualified to participate in the Initial Test. - In March 2003, coinciding with the establishment of DHS, The Supply Chain Security Initiative, along with the jurisdiction and customs clearance operation, has been shifted to CBP. - On July 23, 2003, DHS announced publication of proposed regulations, requiring advance notice to CBP of import and export shipments for each mode of transportation, air, truck, rail, and sea, to implement the Trade Act of 2002. - On 18 August 2003, the participation to the C-TPAT has been opened for foreign manufacturers in Mexico and the FAST Program was started at the Mexican Border. - According to the explanation provided by CBP, the benefits promised to PE's include: (1) The low inspection rate/Speedy customs clearance: As regards PE's, the ratio to get the cargo inspection is one to six, and the ratio to get the precision inspection on compliance related matters is one to four (which figures correspond to once over 47 entries for NPEs, compared to once over 300 entries for PE's); and (2) Payment on the basis of the Periodic Monthly Statement ("PMS"): PMS is prepared based on the Automated Commercial Environment ("ACE") now under development, which is due for full operation upon reaching the Release 3. ACE has been tested since June 2004. - On December 9, 2004, The High Level Committee of the World Customs Organization released its Plan to Establish the Framework of Standard for the Supply Chain Security Standard, with a view to facilitate the International Supply Chain Security and Trade. This Plan is based on the Security Program, which has already been implemented by the U.S., namely, The 24-Hour Rule, C-TPAT, CSI, and Automated Targeting System. The "Framework" is designed to beef up the cooperation by and among the customs authorities commissioned to facilitate the Supply Chain Security and trade through the use of the advanced information technology and the smart container with a tightened security. - On February 1, 2005, CBP has excluded the PE requirements to C-TPAT, from the conditions to get the ACE connection, with the intent of promoting incorporation of ACE into the electronic customs declaration system and spreading widely the benefits that can be gained from a wider use of the ACE, such as payment of duties under the Periodic Monthly Statement. This has made it possible for NPEs to connect to ACE, or to apply for participation in the ACE tests. - In December 2005, GOJ requested GOU to expand the scope of the benefit that PE's enjoy while seeking to strike a balance between thoroughness of security and efficiency of distribution:- Less strict deadline for submission of the Manifest, exemption of PE's from the Manifest submission requirement, reduction in the number of days for examination, etc. GOJ also requested that GOU executes policy evaluation that reflects the PE's wishes and publishes the evaluation result. - In "The Sixth Report To The Leaders On The U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform And Competition Policy Initiative" GOU stated: "The Government of the United States fully understands Japan's request that more tangible benefits should be given to C-TPAT participants. The Government of the United States will take appropriate measures to expand tangible benefits to C-TPAT participants and will continue to facilitate private sector engagement in an effort to enhance the transparency in the process of implementation and further revision of C-TPAT rules." - On August 7, 2008, Customs and Border Protection released General Notice, "Container Seals on Maritime Cargo", bringing attention to the existing statutory requirement by which all maritime containers in transit to the United States are required to be sealed with a seal meeting the ISO/PAS 17712 standard and specifies the date on which the requirement shall take effect. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 2008. - On 23 September 2010, CBP of the U.S. announced that the number of certified C-TPAT enterprises has exceeded 10,000 firms, representing 50% of the total import into the U.S. - On 6 September 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) established the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE) with experimental purposes for Automotive and Aerospace in Detroit, after electrical appliances and drugs sectors, with the view to reduce the cost of import examination, to strengthen security, to homogenize import examination by concentrating in one spot importer's information that requires expert knowledge for customs examination which is specialized in each industrial sector, and to expedite import customs examination. Enterprises participating in C-TPAT and Importer Self Assessment-(ISA) are deemed as CEE Partnership Enterprises and will enjoy an expedited import customs clearance. From now on, CEE will be placed in 9-locations for various products, including Agriculture & Processed Foods, Steel, Machinery, Consumer Products, Industrial and Manufacturing Materials Apparel, Footwear & Textiles, etc. - On 9 July 2014, the U.S. CBC released the qualifications and the security requirement to participate in C-TPAT in the export sector. |
|||
| (Improvement) - On 26 June 2009, Japan Customs of Ministry of Finance and Customs Border Protection (CBP) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reached a mutual recognition agreement in AEO Program, whereby both parties will certify a party involved in the international movement of goods as complying with WCO or equivalent supply chain security standards and mutually approve AEO (Authorized Economic Operator) Program and signed and executed the Agreement. The followings are the essential issues of the Agreement: (1) Upon examination and inspection of the import cargo, the U.S. Customs Authority will reflect in its Risk Evaluation the qualification of the enterprise, if the cargo is exported by an AEO enterprise of Japan. (2) The Customs Authorities of both countries will accept the qualification of the enterprise that is certified as AEO enterprise of the other country in examining the enterprise of the other country in respect of its own AEO Program. |
|||
| (13) Regulations Requiring Submission of the Cargo Manifest 24-Hours prior to Shipment | - The 10+2 Rule under the SAFE Port Act fully implemented since 2010 takes a lot of work and time. Particularly information from India lags behind. - While the EU and the GOJ compel the Programme for 24-Hours' Advance Registration of Manifest, as is done by the GOU, the GOU compels Registration of 10-Items upon Shippers, heavily burdening Shippers. In addition, the GOU compels the U.S. Importer Security Filing "10+2" Programme with 24-Hours' Advance Registration of Manifest Requirement, which heavily burdens the Shippers. Moreover, GOU fines penalty in the amount of USD5,000 for the delays, which practice is unique to the U.S. |
- It is requested that GOU alleviates, simplifies or repeals the 10+2 Rule. - It is requested that the GOU deregulates the Programme at least to the level similar to the EU 24-Hour Programme. |
- 24-Hour Rule - Trade Act of 2002, Section343 - Customs Regulations 19 CFR Parts 4, 103, 113, 122, 123, 178, 192 - 10+2 Rule - Customs Regulations 19 CFR Parts 4, 12, 18, 101, 103, 113, 122, 123, 141, 143, 149, 192 - Importer Security Filling "10+2", US Customs and BP |
| (Action) - On 5 December 2003, the Final Rule is due to be announced, requiring advance notice to CBP of import and export shipments for each mode of transportation, air, truck, rail, and sea, to implement the Trade Act of 2002. - Japan reacted as follows: -- In September 2002, a Public Comment concerning The 24-Hour Rule was submitted by JMCTI (Japan Machinery Center for Trade & Investment). -- Since November 2002, at Japan-U.S. Conferences, such as the WG of the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform Initiative and Deputy Ministers, GOJ requested GOU to consider deregulation or exemption of the Advance Notice Electronic Transmission Rule (ANET Rule) so that a series of measures against terrorism does not turn into a factor of trade impediments. -- In August 2003, GOJ submitted a Public Comment concerning the ANET Rule. JMCTI, Nippon-Keidanren, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. and The Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry each submitted its respective Public Comment. - On November 5, 2003, at the WG of Japan-U.S. Investment Initiative, GOJ requested GOU to give the C-TPAT participating enterprises a flexible response to The 24-Hour Rule requirement, since these enterprises are compelled to absorb increased costs arising from the submission of the cargo information 24 hours in advance of the cargo loading on to the vessel. - On November 20, 2003, DHS and CBP released the Final Rule for the Advance Notice to implement the Trade Act of 2002 and reported it to the Congress. - In the 3rd Report to the Leaders of the Japan-U.S. Regulatory Reform Initiative of June 2004, it is expressly stated: "The CBP will continue to work to ensure that C-TPAT members realize the benefits of the program." - In The Sixth Report To The Leaders On The U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform And Competition Policy Initiative, GOU stated: "Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information ... Is becoming a recognized international best practice ... GOU notes Japan's concern ... GOU will continue to work to enhance the compatibility of security measures and efficient distribution, and continue working with the international community through organizations such as the International Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization to achieve greater international uniformity in requirements for the international transportation of cargo." - On 2nd January 2008, CBP announced 10+2 Rule that requires additional information not contained in the manifest (such as the manufacturer's name and the place of vanning) 24-hours before the container is loaded on a vessel, inviting public comments. In addition to the requirement for submission of manifest 24-hours in advance of shipment, 10+2 Rule requires submission of 10 items by the U.S. exporters and 2 items by carriers 24-hours in advance of shipment. Due to the additional cost and additional lead time necessitated by 10+2 Rule, about 200 comments have been submitted from not only NAM, ICC, and AAEI but also GOJ, EU, WCO, Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment(JMCTI), Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JAMA), etc. - On July 17, 2008, 40 U.S. groups including National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) submitted to the Congress a request for implementing an advance pilot program on 10+2 Rule. - On November 25, 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security, promulgated "10+2 Interim Final Rule" (IFR), due for enforcement from January 26, 2009, provided, however, that, one-year grace period without penalty is incorporated into the Rule. In response to the IFR's invitation of comments, about CBP has received about 60 comments domestically and abroad, requesting review of the rule and deferment of implementing period. - In "United States-Japan Investment Initiative 2009 Report", GOU states: "Since the issuance of the proposed rule, CBP has made significant revisions based on input from the private sector. It has allowed a number of flexibilities associated with certain required data, created a 12-month "delayed compliance" period, and accepted additional comments from stakeholders on the rule." GOJ: (1) states only a small percentage of Japanese companies have adopted this program at the present time, (2) asks GOU to consider delaying full implementation of the Importer Security Filing regulations beyond the current target date of January 26, 2010, (3) asks GOU to show flexibility in setting deadlines for filing Bill of Lading (B/L) numbers with CBP because many companies, especially small and medium companies, are unable to file the number at least 24 hours prior to lading, (4) asserts many companies have difficulty meeting the deadline due to the current global economic downturn, and (5) requests GOU to ensure wider opportunities for feedback on the proposed new rules. - On July 17, 2009, CBP released its Guideline on implementation of the 10+2 Interim Final Rule, including the calculation of damage and the method of lessening such damage. - Since 26 January 2010 "Full Enforcement" of "the 10+2 Interim Final Rule" has begun. While liquidated damage of USD5,000 is provided in this Rule, Customs Border Protection has publicly announced that it will not assess liquidated damages for failure to file Importer Security Filing (ISF) or errors in the INSUFFICIENT in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2010. As of October 2010, neither liquidated assessment has been filed nor has DNL (Do Not Load) instruction been issued. - In March 2011, at Japan-USA Economic Harmonisation Dialogue, Japan Side proposed to the U.S. Side exchange of dialogues over the deregulation of 24-Hour Rule and 10+2 Rule to smoothen the export procedures, in recognition of the MRA, as a matter of concern to Japan Side. - On 30 March 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security posted Air Cargo Advance Screening Pilot Strategic Plan (ACAS) at its website. The thrust of this pilot program is to compel enterprises related to air cargo to send advance security filing of the air cargo data and information to CBP and Transport Security Administration (TSA). - On 24 October 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the Federal Register that announced the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot program would be formally initiated. - TSA's compulsion of 100% screening on all air cargoes on board the passenger carrier destined to the U.S. is due for enforcement from 3 December 2012. In return, Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has implemented Known Shipper/Regulated Agent (Specified forwarder) (KS/RA) System with effect from 15 October 2012, A new shipper designated as Known Shipper may conduct 100% Screening Inspection as designated by the U.S. on the export cargo at its own facility. - On 30 March 2014, the diet passed the bill to amend partially Customs Tariff Act, introducing "24-hour Advance Manifest Policy". This policy implemented since March 2014 requires "all ocean carriers or NVOCC's (Non Vessel Operating Common Carriers) to submit electronically a complete cargo manifest to the customs, in principle, at least 24 hours prior to cargo loading if that vessel is calling a Japanese port direct". - The Shanghai customs authorities promulgated circular formally requiring 24-hours 24-hour advance manifest policy on direct vessel entering Hong Kong port (excluding transshipped cargoes) on or after 28 June 2014. |
|||
| (14) Rigorous, Complex Air Cargo Explosives Inspection | - Since December 2012, the GOU requires 100% Air Cargo Explosive Screening loaded on Passenger Planes destined to the U.S. Beginning April 2014, the requirement will apply to all Passenger Planes flying to all destinations. These additional works not only increase the cost and administrative expenses, with high possibility of transport cargo delays, it hinders the smooth international trade operation. | - It is requested that the GOU deregulates by large margin the requirements in the left column to the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) Certified Companies. | - The Aviation Security Scheme (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) - The Implementing Recommendations of 9/11 Commission Act |
| (15) Disharmony of International Cargo Security Measures | - While international compatibility is desirable on hamonisation of security measures and trade facilitation, it appears each government is individually drafting its own rules. It is requested that GOU and GOJ takes step toward internationally harmonising the measures on the international cargo security. | - It is requested that GOU and GOJ take step toward harmonising the measures on international cargo security. | |
| (16) Stringent Regulations on Food Import and Insufficient Systematic Coordination | - Including Japan, regulatory control on foodstuff and materials varies in each country, the variance of which forming a non-tariff barrier. | - It is requested that GOU and GOJ take step to harmonise the international plural FDA regulations into a single legislation. | - USFDA - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 |
| (Action) - "The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act of 2002)" was promulgated and entered into force in 2002. Under the Act, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compels inspection on food related facilities not only domestically in the U.S. but also abroad. FDA deems as refusal of inspection, if Inspection Request is not accepted within 24-hours of FDA's inspection request, the name of the party is put on the Import Warning List, and the import into the U.S. is disallowed. - In December 2003, GOU publicized two Interim Final Rules of "Registration of Food Facilities" and "Prior Notice of Imported Food Shipments". - In January 2011, Food Safety Modernization Act was enacted. - On 4 June 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidance for the industry, "Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP)" under The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). It is expected, hopefully, that the 3rd party accreditation requirements, etc. will be helpful in streamlining the import examination. |
|||
| (17) SEC Rule on Compulsory Disclosure for Use of Conflict Minerals | - SEC Rule compels reporting upon Listed Companies manufacturing products using Conflict Minerals (gold, tantalum, tin, or tungsten) that originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and/or an adjoining country (the Covered Countries) to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Listed Companies compel their suppliers' disclosure of information on use or non-use, including the case where the minerals originate in countries outside the Covered Countries, in which case the supplier must give explanation in detail that the minerals originated in a country outside the Covered Countries. | - It is requested that the GOU deregulates disclosure of explanation on Conflict Minerals produced outside the Covered Countries. | - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, H.R.4173 (promulgated on 2l July 2010) |
| (Action) - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (H.R.4173 of 2l July 2010) has introduced a provision compelling enterprises listed in the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to file reporting on transactions related to handling of conflict minerals. Any enterprise manufacturing products using mineral resources originating in Congo or an adjoining country (coltan, tin, gold, tungsten minerals, etc.) is compelled to file Reporting to SEC once a year and to disclose information at its Internet Home Page. Such enterprise must provide detailed explanation to the maximum extent possible as regards (1) a description of the measures taken by the person to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of such minerals, (2) a description of the products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured that are not Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) conflict free, (3) the entity that conducted the independent private sector audit, (4) the facilities used to process the conflict minerals, the mine or location, (5) originating country, etc. with the greatest possible specificity. (The annual report must be certified by the independent third party private sector audit.) - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (H.R.4173) signed by President Obama on 2l July 2010 includes a provision requiring reporting to SEC on enterprises listed in and filing report to the SEC using for their products conflict minerals originating from DRC or its adjoining countries. (Section 1502 of the said Act). - On 15 December 2010, SEC issued Proposed Rules compelling enterprises listed in SEC to file report to SEC and make disclosure of information in case of using conflict minerals in any of their products, soliciting public comment. Many public comments have reached SEC. Final Regulations scheduled for issuance in April 2011 is delayed. - On 9 September 2011, the Senate of the State of California passed the Bill that requires compliance of Regulations on DRC conflict mineral resource as requisite conditions for participation in the U.S. Government Procurement. - In March 2011, at Japan-USA Economic Harmonisation Dialogue, Japan Side presented its proposal: "the U.S. Side is requested to consider the means to minimise the burden and impact on the supply chain as regards the compulsion for reporting to SEC and disclosure of information concerning conflict mineral resource originating from DRC, etc. under the Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", as a matter of concern to Japan Side. - On 22 August 2012, the U.S. Security Exchange Commission (SEC), under the Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, adopted and published the Final Regulation, requiring public companies issuing shares (issuers) to disclose their use of certain "conflict minerals" (Tin, Tungsten, Tantal, Gold: "3TG"). On the Proposed Regulation published in November 2010, extremely numerous public comments from both domestic and abroad reached SEC. The Final Regulation has been promulgated after the lengthy deliberation beyond the original date of enforcement. The subject period for investigation is based on the calendar year, so that the period for the first year is from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, while the submission deadline for Form SD on Conflict Minerals falls on 31 May in each year. The Final Regulation adopts the 3-staged processes, the same as Proposed Regulation released in November 2010. However, its procedures and the judgement basis are modified in many respects. According to SEC, these modifications have been made to alleviate the burden to satisfy the requirements under Section 1502. - On 12 September 2012, SEC published final regulation, which will be applied from the year 2013 (January through December). The First Report is due by the End of June 2, 2014. - In March 2014, European Committee released draft regulation on conflict minerals, initially based on the voluntary self-accreditation scheme. However, European Parliament demanded amendment that required compulsory auditing obligations upon refineries/factories, and evaluation and administration of the supply chain in the downstream industries, under strict observance of the OECD guidelines. - National Association Of Manufacturers, et al. (NAM) filed petition to United States court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit, alleging compulsion under SEC Regulation marking of "not been to be 'DRC conflict free' " etc., infringes upon enterprises freedom of expression protected under the U.S. Constitution. In April 2014, United States court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit ruled, voiding partially the SEC Regulation. Consequently, SEC announced removal of the judgement results: "DRC conflict free", "not been found to be 'DRC conflict free' ", "DRC conflict undeterminable", etc., from the information disclosure obligations under the SEC Regulation. It is said, in addition, that dissatisfied with the decision, SEC then appealed to United States court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit, seeking "en banc" examination. |
|||
| (18) International Discrepancies in the Requisite Description relative to the Customs Clearance Documents | - It has taken a Member Firm one month, only to get the discrepancies adjusted between the GOU and the GOJ over the Health Certificate (Export Certificate for Animal Products, issued by the USDA this time), concerning the wordings, which should be described on the Products (the descriptive method of the wordings). While the GOU accepts only a simple generic product description, the GOJ requires the verbatim word for word compatibility with the Commercial Invoice (CI) description, in addition to the quantitative description on the CI. The Member Firm was at a loss what to do. The GOU would not concede to the last minute, due to the absence of any such precedence. As the last straw, the Member Firm filled, in the Identification Column of the Certificate, the Product Catalogue Number that matches the Customs Clearance Documents to obtain GOJ's approval in the end. |
- The case described in the left column occurred just for importing the product simply as an evaluation sample. While the respective circumstances affecting both governmental authorities cannot be ignored, it is requested that both governments will make it crystal clear as to what the concerned parties must practically do, by adjusting the tolerance in the requisite description, and eliminating discrepancies in the tolerance between GOJ and GOU. | - State, Local, and Tribal Laws on Prevention of Livestock Epidemic Disease (Animal Quarantine) |
| (19) Non-Conforming Customs Clearance Systems by Countries (NCCC) | - NCCC blocks the benefits from effective collaboration between countries, due to the systematic differences in the export/import customs clearance procedures both ways. Exporters are unable to grasp the import procedures in the importing countries, as it were a formation of procedural trade barriers. Examples: (1) The system that enables import customs clearance by the procedures completed in exporting country, through mutual data exchange between the customs. (2) The system that enables authorised exporter's automatic import customs clearance only by completion of customs clearance in exporting country. (3) The system that largely cuts down the procedures by eliminating consumption tax on duty free products, simplifying the customs clearance system.# |
- It is requested that both GOU and GOJ mutually advance rationalization in import/export procedures no different from the domestic logistics. | |
<<BACK |