As announced in May 2011, Japan and Korea signed the mutual recognition of AEO in both countries.
http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2011/05/aeo-mutual-recognition-between-japan.html
Japan Customs announced the implementation of mutual recognition with Korea will be in place on Nov. 01, 2011. The procedures how the AEO operations will make use of the benefits in customs declaration can be found in following Customs web site.
http://www.customs.go.jp/zeikan/seido/aeo/leaflet_23-10.pdf
2011年10月2日日曜日
Japan-Mexico EPA protocol amending signed
According to press release issued by METI and MOFA on September 23, 2011, the protocol amending between Japan and Mexico was signed. The Japan-Mexico EPA entered into force on April, 2005 and it greatly contributed to the trade volume increase for both countries.
The new protocol is expected to promote trade liberalization, and main topics are as follows.
The new protocol is expected to promote trade liberalization, and main topics are as follows.
- Further improvement of market accesss conditions related to trade in goods:
Mexican side:
- Acceleration of the elimination of tariffs imposed on certain auto parts and paper for ink-jet printers (They will be eliminated in 2012, two years earlier than the original schedule).
- Elimination of tariffs on mandarin oranges and the establishment of tariff rate quotas for apples and green tea.
Japanese Side:
- Expansion of tariff rate quotas and reductions of in-quota tariffs applied to beef, pork, chicken, orange and orange juice
- Establishment of a tariff rate quota for agave syrup: Fructose syrup from Agave (Negotiations regarding pineapples, durum wheat, cane sugar, etc. will take place in 2014.) - The application of most-favored nation (MFN) applied tariff rates on particular goods in case these rates are lower than those under the EPA:
- A provision has been added to apply MFN applied tariff rates under the WTO on particular goods in case the MFN rates are lower than the corresponding tariff rates under the EPA. - Introduction of the Approved Exporter System:
- In order to facilitate procedures for certification of origin, the rules on the Approved Exporter System will be introduced.
2011年10月1日土曜日
Update of license exception of technology transfer in Japan
On September 30, 2011, the change of regulation regarding technology transfer license exception was announced in Japanese METI web site.
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law09.html#019
This update is not significant change, but slight words addition in order to prevent evasion of the law or abuse in license exception under "publicly available" technology.
The regulation change is the Article 9 (2) (ix) of "Ministerial Ordinance on Trade Relation Invisible Trade, etc." which define various license exceptions of technology transfer. Like any other countries, Japan also define the licence exception of publicly available technology, currently as below.
Article 9 (2)
(ix) transactions through which technology in the public domain is provided or technology is provided to make said technology known to the public, and which fall under any of (a) to (e) below:
As of September 30, 2011, following new additional provision is added and effective immediately.
(Except the transaction which aim to provide specific technology to specific person by making it in public domain)
What does it mean? Well, let me give one example case.
One Japanese company aims to provide license required technology to a foreign company. But, as the license application is troublesome and takes time, they try to make use of the license exception of publicly available technology. For example, a Japanese company upload the licensed technology into their web site (making it publicly available) and the upload time onto the web was actually informed to the partner foreign company beforehand. Just after the foreign company download the specific information, the Japanese company immediately delete the information on their web site.
This transaction was not illegal (but seems evasion of the law), but not any more.
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law09.html#019
This update is not significant change, but slight words addition in order to prevent evasion of the law or abuse in license exception under "publicly available" technology.
The regulation change is the Article 9 (2) (ix) of "Ministerial Ordinance on Trade Relation Invisible Trade, etc." which define various license exceptions of technology transfer. Like any other countries, Japan also define the licence exception of publicly available technology, currently as below.
Article 9 (2)
(ix) transactions through which technology in the public domain is provided or technology is provided to make said technology known to the public, and which fall under any of (a) to (e) below:
As of September 30, 2011, following new additional provision is added and effective immediately.
(Except the transaction which aim to provide specific technology to specific person by making it in public domain)
What does it mean? Well, let me give one example case.
One Japanese company aims to provide license required technology to a foreign company. But, as the license application is troublesome and takes time, they try to make use of the license exception of publicly available technology. For example, a Japanese company upload the licensed technology into their web site (making it publicly available) and the upload time onto the web was actually informed to the partner foreign company beforehand. Just after the foreign company download the specific information, the Japanese company immediately delete the information on their web site.
This transaction was not illegal (but seems evasion of the law), but not any more.
2011年9月18日日曜日
Export control violation of pump for chemical
According to several major news papers on Sept 13, a Japanese machine manufacturer exported pump for chemical plant illegally to China, without obtaining export license by METI.
The company name is Shin Toyo Kikai Kogyo Co., Ltd, medium size pump manufacturer, located in Saitama in Kanto region. They allegedly exported pump for chemical use to a company in China. The end-user is Japanese company's subsidiary, which is auto manufacturing and one of subsidiaries of JFE Steel, steel manufacturing giant in Japan.
Not sure what category the chemical pump is classified. My guess is Japanese Category 3 (2) (or US ECCN 2B350). Because the end-use is auto-manufacturing site of Japanese subsidiary, it is not likely this case is violation of WMD catch-all control. (The detail of the product is not disclosed, this is my guess.)
The president of Shin Toyo Kikai Kogyo admit they prioritized lead time and quick delivery, rather than applying export license to METI which they considered time loss. The lead time of export licens by METI is typically about 1 week, but METI tend to require several supporting documents or end-use statement etc., case by case, the preparation of export license require significant time, energy and cost, especially to an exporter who is not familiar with export control system.
However, they will pay much more time loss (and also credibility loss & money loss!) by this violation.
The company name is Shin Toyo Kikai Kogyo Co., Ltd, medium size pump manufacturer, located in Saitama in Kanto region. They allegedly exported pump for chemical use to a company in China. The end-user is Japanese company's subsidiary, which is auto manufacturing and one of subsidiaries of JFE Steel, steel manufacturing giant in Japan.
Not sure what category the chemical pump is classified. My guess is Japanese Category 3 (2) (or US ECCN 2B350). Because the end-use is auto-manufacturing site of Japanese subsidiary, it is not likely this case is violation of WMD catch-all control. (The detail of the product is not disclosed, this is my guess.)
The president of Shin Toyo Kikai Kogyo admit they prioritized lead time and quick delivery, rather than applying export license to METI which they considered time loss. The lead time of export licens by METI is typically about 1 week, but METI tend to require several supporting documents or end-use statement etc., case by case, the preparation of export license require significant time, energy and cost, especially to an exporter who is not familiar with export control system.
However, they will pay much more time loss (and also credibility loss & money loss!) by this violation.
2011年9月7日水曜日
METI add more FAQ in post-license manegement
Japanese METI updated the export control license management FAQ on Sept 5, 2011.
Unfortunately for most of global traders, this FAQ is written only in Japanese and no English translation.
What is written in this FAQ is about the procedure of supporting documents and post-license management in exporting Japanese control item Category 4 (18) - Batch mixers and Continuous mixers - or equivalent to US ECCN 1B117 and 1B118.
In exporting such goods, the export license is required with various supporting documents. The supporting documents include (in case by case) the statement of end-user, factory layout plan where the equipments are installed, the oath of NOT relocating the equipment to another location even in another floor in the same property, etc. etc.
What is written here is guideline of such supporting documents and METI's policy of post-license management. As long as the license applicant follow up to clear the diversion risk and non proliferation concern and report to METI in advance if required so, METI don't prohibit relocation of the equipments.
When I talk with non-Japanese export control specialist, some of them complaint about Japanese METI's extra-territorial control. In principle, Japanese export control law is NOT extra-territorial, but some believe the METI's post-license management is substantially extra-territorial effect. That may be partly true from operator's point of view. Why foreign end-users need to have approval of METI when they relocate the controlled equipments which were exported legally under METI license? In order to mitigate such Japan extra-territorial license management practice, METI try to refine the FAQ by providing much guidance with details. Hope this FAQ is provided in English.
(Resource from below URL - in Japanese.)
Q＆A「６．連続式の混合機関連 別表第1の4の項(8)」 ttp://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/qanda065.html
Q＆A「７．連続式の混合機関連 別表第1の4の項(8)＜添付資料関係＞」http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/qanda0655.html
Unfortunately for most of global traders, this FAQ is written only in Japanese and no English translation.
What is written in this FAQ is about the procedure of supporting documents and post-license management in exporting Japanese control item Category 4 (18) - Batch mixers and Continuous mixers - or equivalent to US ECCN 1B117 and 1B118.
In exporting such goods, the export license is required with various supporting documents. The supporting documents include (in case by case) the statement of end-user, factory layout plan where the equipments are installed, the oath of NOT relocating the equipment to another location even in another floor in the same property, etc. etc.
What is written here is guideline of such supporting documents and METI's policy of post-license management. As long as the license applicant follow up to clear the diversion risk and non proliferation concern and report to METI in advance if required so, METI don't prohibit relocation of the equipments.
When I talk with non-Japanese export control specialist, some of them complaint about Japanese METI's extra-territorial control. In principle, Japanese export control law is NOT extra-territorial, but some believe the METI's post-license management is substantially extra-territorial effect. That may be partly true from operator's point of view. Why foreign end-users need to have approval of METI when they relocate the controlled equipments which were exported legally under METI license? In order to mitigate such Japan extra-territorial license management practice, METI try to refine the FAQ by providing much guidance with details. Hope this FAQ is provided in English.
(Resource from below URL - in Japanese.)
Q＆A「６．連続式の混合機関連 別表第1の4の項(8)」 ttp://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/qanda065.html
Q＆A「７．連続式の混合機関連 別表第1の4の項(8)＜添付資料関係＞」http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/qanda0655.html
2011年9月1日木曜日
Update of proliferation concern list in Japan
On September 1st, 2011, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ("METI") announced its update of Proliferation concerned parties list (otherwise called Foreign Users List or Gaikoku User List) on its web site.
This list is similar to Entity List of US BIS. The listed entities are considered as have been involved in development, manufacturing, use or storage of weapon of massive destruction ("WMD"). Please be noted this list is not embargo list. Although trader needs to have close attention to WMD proliferation concern when doing trade with listed entities, if it is obviously clear the item is not used for WMD purpose, the trade is not denied. This list have been updated in practice once a year, last update was September 2010.
The new list can be found here: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/t08kaisei/110901EUL/t08kaisei_userlist_kohyo.pdf
In total, the number of entities are increased to 354. I didn't closely check the entity name, but most of the increased entities are in Iran and in North Korea. Indian entities are decreased much.
For global traders, what entity is decontolled, especially in India & China, would be point of interest. The entity names which are removed from the list are as follows.
・【India】Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), DRDO
・【India】Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL)
・【India】Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (IRE), DAE
・【India】Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
・【India】Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), ISRO
・【India】Solid State Physics Laboratory, DRDO
・【India】United Phosphorous Limited
・【China】China Electronic Product Reliability Environmental Testing Research Institute (CEPREI)
Above entity names are no longer in the list as WMD proliferation concerned parties of Japanese METI.
However, for traders who handles US origin items, it is important to note Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (IRE), Department of Atomic Energy, is still listed on Entity List of US EAR. It is encouraged to double check with other restricted parties list issued by US government.
This list is similar to Entity List of US BIS. The listed entities are considered as have been involved in development, manufacturing, use or storage of weapon of massive destruction ("WMD"). Please be noted this list is not embargo list. Although trader needs to have close attention to WMD proliferation concern when doing trade with listed entities, if it is obviously clear the item is not used for WMD purpose, the trade is not denied. This list have been updated in practice once a year, last update was September 2010.
The new list can be found here: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/t08kaisei/110901EUL/t08kaisei_userlist_kohyo.pdf
In total, the number of entities are increased to 354. I didn't closely check the entity name, but most of the increased entities are in Iran and in North Korea. Indian entities are decreased much.
For global traders, what entity is decontolled, especially in India & China, would be point of interest. The entity names which are removed from the list are as follows.
・【India】Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), DRDO
・【India】Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL)
・【India】Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (IRE), DAE
・【India】Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (LPSC), Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
・【India】Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC), ISRO
・【India】Solid State Physics Laboratory, DRDO
・【India】United Phosphorous Limited
・【China】China Electronic Product Reliability Environmental Testing Research Institute (CEPREI)
Above entity names are no longer in the list as WMD proliferation concerned parties of Japanese METI.
However, for traders who handles US origin items, it is important to note Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (IRE), Department of Atomic Energy, is still listed on Entity List of US EAR. It is encouraged to double check with other restricted parties list issued by US government.
2011年8月1日月曜日
Export ban sanction again to violator North Korea trade
According to News Release of METI on July 28, 2011, METI announced again the export prohibition sanction to a violator who made export to North Korea without approval. The penalty sanction is to First Shokai (or First Trade) K.K. who is likely to be a small trade house in Sakaiminato, Tottori prefecture.
The export Prohibition sanction to First Shokai K.K. is for six months (from August 3, 2011 to February 2, 2012) of all goods to all destinations. This export prohibition is applied also to the transaction by third parties.
First Shokai K.K. exported piano and candies etc to North Korea without METI approval via Dalian in China. I believe export control expert easily understand the difference of export "permission" and export "approval" under Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange Law ("FEFTL"). Obviously, First Shokai K.K. did not export dual-use items which may contribute to the development, manufacturing, and use of Weapon of Massive Destruction ("WMD"), they exported piano and candies which are luxury goods or commodities.
(Source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/07/20110728006/20110728006.html )
Update: By the way, apart from METI sanction, it is worth while noticing this violation case is the first criminal prosecution that the offender got imprisonment sentence (1 year and 4 months) without suspended period. This is the first case in the history of export control violation in Japan. In other words, all other export violation cases in Japan have been with suspended sentence.
(http://www.cistec.or.jp/export/ihanjirei/fuseiyusyutu_jiken.pdf)
The export Prohibition sanction to First Shokai K.K. is for six months (from August 3, 2011 to February 2, 2012) of all goods to all destinations. This export prohibition is applied also to the transaction by third parties.
First Shokai K.K. exported piano and candies etc to North Korea without METI approval via Dalian in China. I believe export control expert easily understand the difference of export "permission" and export "approval" under Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange Law ("FEFTL"). Obviously, First Shokai K.K. did not export dual-use items which may contribute to the development, manufacturing, and use of Weapon of Massive Destruction ("WMD"), they exported piano and candies which are luxury goods or commodities.
- Export Permission = for weapon, dual-use goods, non-controlled items under catch-all based on Article 48 (1) of FEFTL. The items list is in Appendix 1 of Export Trade Control Order ("ETCO")
- Export Approval = for luxury goods or commodities, in this particular case, North Korea trade sanction due to UNSCR and Japanese government policy based on Article 48 (3) of FEFTL. The items list is in Appendix 2 (and 2-2) of ETCO.
- Export prohibition sanction in violation of without permission = not more than 3 years based on Article 53 (1) of FEFTL.
- Export (or import) prohibition sanction in violation of without approval = not more than 1 year based on Article 53 (2) of FEFTL.
(Source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/07/20110728006/20110728006.html )
Update: By the way, apart from METI sanction, it is worth while noticing this violation case is the first criminal prosecution that the offender got imprisonment sentence (1 year and 4 months) without suspended period. This is the first case in the history of export control violation in Japan. In other words, all other export violation cases in Japan have been with suspended sentence.
(http://www.cistec.or.jp/export/ihanjirei/fuseiyusyutu_jiken.pdf)
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
