According to press release of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese government decided to sign EPA with India. To sign this agreement is expected on Feb 16 in the meeting of Mr. Seiji Maehara, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of India.
The talk of EPA Japan - India was started in January 2007 and the negotiation was agreed in October 2010. The implementation is expected in sometime in 2011.
One noteworthy point in this JPN-India ETA would be rule of origin. This EPA have both general rule and PSR (Product Specific Rule) in origin rule. In general rule, the qualification of origin is described as, "CTSH (6 digits level change of HS code) AND Value add 35%".
This "AND" is big one, because this means "cover both". I remember Japan - Asean EPA general rule is "either" HS code change or value add.
Japan - India EPA require much more challenging in rule of origin qualification. Actually, Asean - India FTA have same general rule, which is likely to be the request by India side.
(Source: MOFA web site: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/india/epa201102/index.html
METI web site: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/html2/2-torikumi3-india.html )
2011年2月15日火曜日
2011年2月10日木曜日
Ancillary Cryptography exemption in Japan
As most of export control guys are aware, ancillary cryptography exemption rule was incorporated into Wassenaar Arrangement dual-use items list Note 4 in Category 5 part 2, in December 2009.
In Japan, the ancillary cryptography has been implemented since April 01, 2010, and in U.S., it has been implemented June 25, 2010.
(Please be noted some countries don't implement yet, such as EU, Singapore and Malaysia (from July 2011).)
How's actual practice in ancillary cryptography in classification work in Japanese companies?
Belows are something I have heard so far.
Ancillary cryptography Note 4 is translated in Tsutatsu （通達）level (Notification level). The legal words are almost same as original English words. As the legal words are short and concise, that makes various interpretations in actual implementation, then some companies are very cautious about applying and removing their items from controlled items of Category 5 part 2.
For example, how Multi Functions Printers ("MFP") should be considered?
Generally, it is considered an ordinal uni-function printer can be exempted from controlled items by applying ancillary cryptography. But MFP have multiple functions such as printing, scanning, faxing, and copying etc. In this case, the suggested practice in Japan is to "review all functions one by one" in ancillary point of view. This means, if all functions (print, scan, fax, and copy) are exempted from ancillary point of view, the MFP can be exempted. However, if any one of functions cannot be exempted in terms of ancillary, the whole MFP should not be applied ancillary exemption.
Other cases I have heard:
IC chip (5A002) embedded with encryption? - Not exempted as ancillary
Internet browser such as IE? - Not exempted as ancillary
Server, PC, VPN, router, network switch, wireless LAN, storage, HDD, - all of them are off course, No, No, and No.
It is generally considered Japanese companies are reluctant to adopt new idea and avoid the risk to be "first" runner. But once some major companies aggressively adopt the new ideas, the rest will follow soon. I'm not so sure this principle apply to implementation of ancillary exemption implementation in classification work, but hope to see more actual cases and discussion in industries and METI.
In Japan, the ancillary cryptography has been implemented since April 01, 2010, and in U.S., it has been implemented June 25, 2010.
(Please be noted some countries don't implement yet, such as EU, Singapore and Malaysia (from July 2011).)
How's actual practice in ancillary cryptography in classification work in Japanese companies?
Belows are something I have heard so far.
Ancillary cryptography Note 4 is translated in Tsutatsu （通達）level (Notification level). The legal words are almost same as original English words. As the legal words are short and concise, that makes various interpretations in actual implementation, then some companies are very cautious about applying and removing their items from controlled items of Category 5 part 2.
For example, how Multi Functions Printers ("MFP") should be considered?
Generally, it is considered an ordinal uni-function printer can be exempted from controlled items by applying ancillary cryptography. But MFP have multiple functions such as printing, scanning, faxing, and copying etc. In this case, the suggested practice in Japan is to "review all functions one by one" in ancillary point of view. This means, if all functions (print, scan, fax, and copy) are exempted from ancillary point of view, the MFP can be exempted. However, if any one of functions cannot be exempted in terms of ancillary, the whole MFP should not be applied ancillary exemption.
Other cases I have heard:
IC chip (5A002) embedded with encryption? - Not exempted as ancillary
Internet browser such as IE? - Not exempted as ancillary
Server, PC, VPN, router, network switch, wireless LAN, storage, HDD, - all of them are off course, No, No, and No.
It is generally considered Japanese companies are reluctant to adopt new idea and avoid the risk to be "first" runner. But once some major companies aggressively adopt the new ideas, the rest will follow soon. I'm not so sure this principle apply to implementation of ancillary exemption implementation in classification work, but hope to see more actual cases and discussion in industries and METI.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
