On June 16, 2009, Japanese Ministry of Economic, Trade and Industry ("METI") announced Japan totally ban export to North Korea based on the UN Security Council resolution 1718.
The summary of this announcement is as follows.
- Prohibit export of ALL goods to North Korea by imposing export approval based on Export Trade Control Order Article 2, 1-1-2. (This imply even if an exporter apply export approval to METI, they never approve it.)
- Prohibit brokering of trade by Japanese resident, of the goods shipped from third country to North Korea based on Foreign Exchange Order Article 18, 3.
- Humanitarian aid is treated as the exception of export prohibition.
- This prohibition is effective on June 18, 2009 to April 13, 2010.
- The violation of this would be penalized based on Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law, Article 70. Imprisonment not more than 3 years and monetary penalty. In addition, as administrative sanction, the prohibition of export not more than 1 year may be imposed.
On the same day, the notification by Director General of Customs and Tariff Bureau was announced to rigidly follow this announcement. Export by detour via a third country toward North Korea must be checked, the inspection by Customs to suspicious export case will be tighten. In case by case, Customs official may check the export contract or other supporting documents in export declaration to Customs to strictly inspect the final destination of the goods.
The actual trade amount from Japan to North Korea was approx. 8 millions US dollar in 2008, and it continued to decline for years. Therefore, the negative impact to Japanese trade economy is considered as very limited.
2009年6月17日水曜日
2009年6月15日月曜日
UN Security Council impose new sanction to North Korea
Recently these days, we find quite a lot of TV news and newspaper articles relating to North Korea trade sanction. They are broadcasted many times with each progress, it is not easy to understand whole picture.
See below URL articles regarding North Korea sanctions, it is summarised concisely in one page.
The bottom line is, the new sanctions do not extend to trade in civilian goods and services.
The ultimate impact of the new sanctions will depend on the extent to which governments’implementing laws and regulations. The best way to understand the situation correctly is to consult local export compliance professional in each country.
Source: http://www.bryancave.com/files/Publication/77853ea9-fc1a-42e0-9ca4-3e6541ad7e76/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ee00571a-2cdc-47d2-aa33-4928759ba128/IRB442.pdf
See below URL articles regarding North Korea sanctions, it is summarised concisely in one page.
The bottom line is, the new sanctions do not extend to trade in civilian goods and services.
The ultimate impact of the new sanctions will depend on the extent to which governments’implementing laws and regulations. The best way to understand the situation correctly is to consult local export compliance professional in each country.
Source: http://www.bryancave.com/files/Publication/77853ea9-fc1a-42e0-9ca4-3e6541ad7e76/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ee00571a-2cdc-47d2-aa33-4928759ba128/IRB442.pdf
2009年6月8日月曜日
EC export control new regulaiton
EU will introduce new regulation for export control of transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items. It was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009). It will come into effect on August 27, 2009 and will replace the current regulation.
This new regulation reflect the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), which is requirement of "brokering" and "transit" control of dual use items.
"Brokering" is the transaction of controlled items from a third country outside the EU and to a another third country outside the EU. The license may be required for a potential WMD end-use. The items are defined to include software and technology.
Similar export regulation is also imposed in Japan based on US Security Council Resolution 1540, in terms of brokering service. However, the difference (or, say, loophole of Japan's regulation) is that Japan regulate only the goods, don't regulate technology brokering under FEFTL.
(Source: http://www.bryancave.com/files/Publication/b69b1fe6-698c-458d-bbe5-37d863f91e5f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ab7674bf-b862-4e12-bda2-3c1d1627df8d/IRB441.pdf)
This new regulation reflect the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), which is requirement of "brokering" and "transit" control of dual use items.
"Brokering" is the transaction of controlled items from a third country outside the EU and to a another third country outside the EU. The license may be required for a potential WMD end-use. The items are defined to include software and technology.
Similar export regulation is also imposed in Japan based on US Security Council Resolution 1540, in terms of brokering service. However, the difference (or, say, loophole of Japan's regulation) is that Japan regulate only the goods, don't regulate technology brokering under FEFTL.
(Source: http://www.bryancave.com/files/Publication/b69b1fe6-698c-458d-bbe5-37d863f91e5f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ab7674bf-b862-4e12-bda2-3c1d1627df8d/IRB441.pdf)
2009年5月29日金曜日
FCPA - US cracks down on corporate bribes
A bit apart from customs and trade matters, but getting important for companies which operate globally, it is enforcement of FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practice Act).
The FCPA prohibit US companies from paying or offering to pay, foreign-government officials or employees of state-owned companies to gain a business advantage. It covers non-monetary gifts or offers in addition to cash payments. The gray area of the law sometimes apply to actions, for example, the giving of seasonal gifts that is common in Japan or some other Asian countries.
This law applies not only US nationals but also for other foreign nationals working for US companies, or foreign companies which issue ADR (American Depository Receipts) in US. For example, a Japanese manager in Bridgestone Corporation was accused of violation of FCPA, allegedly involved indirectly bribe-related activity of marketing in South America.
Recently, the crackdown under the FCPA now extend across world-wide and penetrates entire industries. The Justice Department is increasing its prosecutions of alleged acts of foreign bribery by US corporations, forcing them to take costly steps to defend against scrutiny.
Here is examples of Lucent Technologies Inc. In 2007, the Justice Department settled charges against Lucent for failing to properly record millions of dollars in travel to Disney World, Las Vegas and other sightseeing destinations for about 1,000 Chinese Foreign officials who worked for state-controlled telecom companies. Lucent had characterized the trips as factory tours, but admitted to the conduct and paid $2.5 millions in fines.
Another example of non-US company, Siemens AG, German industrial conglomerate. Siemens agreed in December 2008 to pay $800 millions in US fines to settle bribery investigations involving alleged payments to government officials around the world to win infrastructure contracts. This fine amount is the largest foreign-bribery fine ever. Also, the cost of addressing its own corrupting allegations was nearly as much as its total fine of $1.7 billions, including the fines to the German government. Siemens is spending more money now on compliance programs and a government-mandated monitor.
Among the companies currently under Justice Department review, Sun Microsystems, which is in the midst of a potential $7.4 billions purchase by Oracle Corp., said in a regulatory filing that it might have violated bribery laws in an unnamed country. Both Sun and Oracle declined to elaborate on whether the potential violations would affect the merger deal. Oracle has said in an SEC filing that Sun informed it out the matter.
The conclusion: It is absolutely wiser and less costly to have an adequate compliance system in place and a corporate culture that stands for clean business.
The FCPA prohibit US companies from paying or offering to pay, foreign-government officials or employees of state-owned companies to gain a business advantage. It covers non-monetary gifts or offers in addition to cash payments. The gray area of the law sometimes apply to actions, for example, the giving of seasonal gifts that is common in Japan or some other Asian countries.
This law applies not only US nationals but also for other foreign nationals working for US companies, or foreign companies which issue ADR (American Depository Receipts) in US. For example, a Japanese manager in Bridgestone Corporation was accused of violation of FCPA, allegedly involved indirectly bribe-related activity of marketing in South America.
Recently, the crackdown under the FCPA now extend across world-wide and penetrates entire industries. The Justice Department is increasing its prosecutions of alleged acts of foreign bribery by US corporations, forcing them to take costly steps to defend against scrutiny.
Here is examples of Lucent Technologies Inc. In 2007, the Justice Department settled charges against Lucent for failing to properly record millions of dollars in travel to Disney World, Las Vegas and other sightseeing destinations for about 1,000 Chinese Foreign officials who worked for state-controlled telecom companies. Lucent had characterized the trips as factory tours, but admitted to the conduct and paid $2.5 millions in fines.
Another example of non-US company, Siemens AG, German industrial conglomerate. Siemens agreed in December 2008 to pay $800 millions in US fines to settle bribery investigations involving alleged payments to government officials around the world to win infrastructure contracts. This fine amount is the largest foreign-bribery fine ever. Also, the cost of addressing its own corrupting allegations was nearly as much as its total fine of $1.7 billions, including the fines to the German government. Siemens is spending more money now on compliance programs and a government-mandated monitor.
Among the companies currently under Justice Department review, Sun Microsystems, which is in the midst of a potential $7.4 billions purchase by Oracle Corp., said in a regulatory filing that it might have violated bribery laws in an unnamed country. Both Sun and Oracle declined to elaborate on whether the potential violations would affect the merger deal. Oracle has said in an SEC filing that Sun informed it out the matter.
The conclusion: It is absolutely wiser and less costly to have an adequate compliance system in place and a corporate culture that stands for clean business.
2009年5月28日木曜日
2009 Report on Compliance published by METI
Report on Compliance by Major Trading Trade Partners with Trade Agreements - WTO, FTA/EPA, BIT, is an official report by Japanese METI and have been published once a year.
On May 27, 2009 version was published on METI web site. As of now, the report is in Japanese version only, English version will be put on place later, currently up to 2008 version is available on METI web site.
The report covers broad range of trade issues, Part I is the specific trade issues per country, such as bringing the CCC （Chinese Compulsory Certification） issue in China. Part II is for WTO agreement matters, e.g. MFN principle, tariff, anti-dumping, or rule of origin, etc. Part III covers FTA/EPA issues.
Actually, this report covers almost same issues every year, and repeat same insistence from Japanese perspective.
For example in export control matter which request to US, Japan have insisted that US re-export extra-territorial requirement is a potential violation of international law. As Japan is a member of all major international export control regimes and have solid export control regulation fully and effectively. Therefore, Japan have requested US to exempt Japanese exporters as exempt of US re-export control regulation.
Reference:
2009 report (in Japanese): http://www.meti.go.jp/report/data/g90527c01j.html
English version (2009 report is not yet available) : http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html#wtoinconsistency
On May 27, 2009 version was published on METI web site. As of now, the report is in Japanese version only, English version will be put on place later, currently up to 2008 version is available on METI web site.
The report covers broad range of trade issues, Part I is the specific trade issues per country, such as bringing the CCC （Chinese Compulsory Certification） issue in China. Part II is for WTO agreement matters, e.g. MFN principle, tariff, anti-dumping, or rule of origin, etc. Part III covers FTA/EPA issues.
Actually, this report covers almost same issues every year, and repeat same insistence from Japanese perspective.
For example in export control matter which request to US, Japan have insisted that US re-export extra-territorial requirement is a potential violation of international law. As Japan is a member of all major international export control regimes and have solid export control regulation fully and effectively. Therefore, Japan have requested US to exempt Japanese exporters as exempt of US re-export control regulation.
Reference:
2009 report (in Japanese): http://www.meti.go.jp/report/data/g90527c01j.html
English version (2009 report is not yet available) : http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/index_report.html#wtoinconsistency
2009年5月27日水曜日
Japan will update export controlled items list
(Turboprop engine model)Japanese METI announced the pre-evaluation notice of export controlled items list update on its web site on May 27. Japan have joined major International Regimes such as NSG, AG, MTCR and Wassenaar Arrangement. The agreements in these International Regimes are to be reflected into Japanese export control regulation, usually it is updated once a year.
METI announced updated controlled list (draft) in Ministerial Ordinance and start to accept public comment from today until June 25. The updated point this time is reflecting the agreements in November and December 2007 of International Regimes.
(Please be noted the list of Wassenaar Dec 2008 is already available, but the latest 2008 list is NOT included in it.)
Some of the examples of newly added into controlled items list are such as a turboprop engine and its manufacturing equipments, advanced raw material for Semiconductor Integrated Circuit board, and an equipment for invalidating IED (Improvised Explosive Device) etc.
After accepting the public comment, METI will then officially announce the new controlled list and implement with affordable period for making known public. Most likely, the implementation will be around January 2010, based on the past practice.
(Source: http://search.e-gov.go.jp/servlet/Public?CLASSNAME=Pcm1010&BID=595109033&OBJ )
METI announced updated controlled list (draft) in Ministerial Ordinance and start to accept public comment from today until June 25. The updated point this time is reflecting the agreements in November and December 2007 of International Regimes.
(Please be noted the list of Wassenaar Dec 2008 is already available, but the latest 2008 list is NOT included in it.)
Some of the examples of newly added into controlled items list are such as a turboprop engine and its manufacturing equipments, advanced raw material for Semiconductor Integrated Circuit board, and an equipment for invalidating IED (Improvised Explosive Device) etc.
After accepting the public comment, METI will then officially announce the new controlled list and implement with affordable period for making known public. Most likely, the implementation will be around January 2010, based on the past practice.
(Source: http://search.e-gov.go.jp/servlet/Public?CLASSNAME=Pcm1010&BID=595109033&OBJ )
2009年5月26日火曜日
Japan will relax ban on Arms Exports
According to Nikkei newspaper on May 24, 2009, Japanese government decided on a course to relax the ban of arms export. Japanese government has been taking a tough stance against arms exports. At present, arms exports are basically prohibited except for return shipment of foreign military items for repair or replacement, or for some specific export in accordance with a government-to-government agreement.
New policy will allow the co-development or co-manufacturing of weapons with allied countries, which could help efficient development of next generation jet fighter, or help reducing the military related cost. Otherwise, the cost for developing and maintaining the military equipments would be higher and heavy burden in national budget.
The Nikkei news don't report any change of FEFTL (Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law) and Export Trade Control Order. This direction change would be considered as internal policy change and the implementation of export license management may be modified in future.
(Source: Nikkei Net http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20090524AT3S2300Y23052009.html )
Overview of "Three Principles on Arms Export"
This policy is based on the statement the Japanese government made in the Diet in 1967, which is called "Three Principles on Arms Exports". This principle prohibits arms export to the following countries.
1) Communist bloc countries
2) Countries subject to arms export embargo under the UN Security Council's resolution
3) Countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflict
Subsequently in 1976, the Japanese government expanded the policy by issuing following statement.
1) Arms export to countries to which the Three Principles applied shall not be permitted.
2) Arms export to countries to which the Three Principles does not apply would be also be restraint.
3) Export of weapon producing facilities shall be treated pursuant to arms export.
Japanese government further expanded the policy by prohibiting export of weapon-related technology as well. As a result, it is now prohibited to export arms and related items under Category 1 of the control list, which is described in the Export Trade Control Order Attachment List No. 1.
(Reference: Japan's Policies on the Control of Arms Exports http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/index.html )
New policy will allow the co-development or co-manufacturing of weapons with allied countries, which could help efficient development of next generation jet fighter, or help reducing the military related cost. Otherwise, the cost for developing and maintaining the military equipments would be higher and heavy burden in national budget.
The Nikkei news don't report any change of FEFTL (Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law) and Export Trade Control Order. This direction change would be considered as internal policy change and the implementation of export license management may be modified in future.
(Source: Nikkei Net http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20090524AT3S2300Y23052009.html )
Overview of "Three Principles on Arms Export"
This policy is based on the statement the Japanese government made in the Diet in 1967, which is called "Three Principles on Arms Exports". This principle prohibits arms export to the following countries.
1) Communist bloc countries
2) Countries subject to arms export embargo under the UN Security Council's resolution
3) Countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflict
Subsequently in 1976, the Japanese government expanded the policy by issuing following statement.
1) Arms export to countries to which the Three Principles applied shall not be permitted.
2) Arms export to countries to which the Three Principles does not apply would be also be restraint.
3) Export of weapon producing facilities shall be treated pursuant to arms export.
Japanese government further expanded the policy by prohibiting export of weapon-related technology as well. As a result, it is now prohibited to export arms and related items under Category 1 of the control list, which is described in the Export Trade Control Order Attachment List No. 1.
(Reference: Japan's Policies on the Control of Arms Exports http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/index.html )
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
