WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1 27 April 2017 (17-2322) Page: 1/356 Trade Policy Review Body 8 and 10 ...

356 Pages·2017·4.79 MB·English

WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

27 April 2017
(17-2322) Page: 1/356
Trade Policy Review Body Original: English/Spanish
8 and 10 March 2017 anglais/espagnol
inglés/español

TRADE POLICY REVIEW
JAPAN
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Addendum
Chairperson: H.E. Ms. Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO
Members, and replies provided by Japan.1

Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales
8 et 10 mars 2017
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES
JAPON
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION
Addendum
Présidente: S.E. Mme. Irene Young (Hong Kong, Chine)
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par Japon.1

Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales
8 y 10 de marzo de 2017
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES
JAPÓN
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN
Addendum
Presidenta: Excma. Sra. Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por
Japón.1

1 In English and Spanish only./En anglais et espagnol seulement./En inglés y español solamente.
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 2 -

Contents
1. AUSTRALIA .................................................................................................................. 4
REVISED ANSWER FROM JAPAN - AUSTRALIA ............................................................... 22
2. SWITZERLAND ........................................................................................................... 23
REVISED ANSWER - SWITZERLAND ............................................................................... 25
3. HONG KONG, CHINA ................................................................................................... 26
4. CANADA ..................................................................................................................... 30
REVISED ANSWERS - CANADA ....................................................................................... 44
ADDITIONAL REPLIES - CANADA ................................................................................... 45
5. MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF ............................................................................................ 45
6. KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ................................................................................................. 47
7. UNITED STATES ......................................................................................................... 49
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS – UNITED STATES .................................................................. 62
REVISED ANSWER - UNITED STATES .............................................................................. 63
ADDITIONAL REPLIES - UNITED STATES ........................................................................ 63
8. EUROPEAN UNION ..................................................................................................... 64
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS –EUROPEAN UNION ............................................................... 79
9. MALAYSIA .................................................................................................................. 80
ADDITIONAL REPLIES - MALAYSIA ................................................................................ 82
10. UKRAINE .................................................................................................................. 86
11. SINGAPORE .............................................................................................................. 94
12. BRAZIL ..................................................................................................................... 95
13. INDONESIA ............................................................................................................ 102
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS - INDONESIA ....................................................................... 109
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS - INDONESIA .......................................................................... 117
14. CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ............................................................................. 118
ADDITIONAL REPLIES - CHINA .................................................................................... 125
15. RUSSIAN FEDERATION ........................................................................................... 146
ADDITIONAL REPLIES - RUSSIAN FEDERATION ........................................................... 158
16. NORWAY ................................................................................................................ 163
17. THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND
MATSU ......................................................................................................................... 166
18. NEW ZEALAND ....................................................................................................... 172
19. INDIA ..................................................................................................................... 178
20. THAILAND .............................................................................................................. 198
21. PERU ...................................................................................................................... 202
22. MEXICO .................................................................................................................. 205
23. COLOMBIA ............................................................................................................. 212
24. COSTA RICA ........................................................................................................... 213
25. CHILE ..................................................................................................................... 214
26. GUATEMALA ........................................................................................................... 219
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 3 -

27. ECUADOR ............................................................................................................... 220
PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DE ECUADOR ..................................................................... 223
28. PARAGUAY ............................................................................................................. 228
29. ARGENTINA ............................................................................................................ 229
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS - ARGENTINA ......................................................................... 231
30. KENYA .................................................................................................................... 238
ADDITIONAL RESPONSES - KENYA ............................................................................... 239
31. MONGOLIA ............................................................................................................. 239
32. TURKEY .................................................................................................................. 240
ADDITIONAL REPLIES TO TURKEY ............................................................................... 247
33. EL SALVADOR ......................................................................................................... 259
34. SAUDI ARABIA, KINGDOM OF ................................................................................ 260
35. OMAN ..................................................................................................................... 260
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... 261
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 4 -

1. AUSTRALIA
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements
3.1.1.1 Transparency and legal framework
The report states that complaints against Japan Customs' decisions may be made to the
Director-General of Customs within three months of the decision. Further appeals may be lodged
with the Minister of Finance within one month of the decision by the Director-General of Customs.
The number of complaints and appeals against Customs totalled 54 in 2014 and 36 in 2015. The
Administrative Appeal Act was revised in 2014 and the appeal process was changed in April 2016.4
The Director-General of Customs and the Minister of Finance review administrative appeals against
customs authorities.

Question 1
Can Japan please provide additional information on how many appeals in 2014 and 2015 were
found in favour of the complainant?

RESPONSE
Among the complaints and appeals that were lodged against Customs in 2014 and in 2015, the
number of cases that were found in favor of complainants were 16 and 8, respectively.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements
3.1.1.3 Release and clearance of goods
Page 30, Paragraph 3.13
The report states that Japan has several systems in place to expedite the release and clearance of
goods.

Question 2
Can Japan please provide additional information on the uptake of electronic systems in lieu of the
current paper and fax based systems? Can Japan please provide additional information on its move
towards electronic certification?

RESPONSE
In 1978, Japan introduced Air-NACCS as an electronic system covering air cargo import
declarations and other related procedures. The coverage of Air-NACCS was expanded later to
include export procedures, and extended to other major airports throughout Japan. Then,
Sea-NACCS was introduced in 1991 and the coverage of Air-NACCS and Sea NACCS was expanded
to all the seaports and airports in Japan in 1999. Now, Air-NACCS and Sea-NACCS are integrated
into one single NACCS. In 2015, about 99% of all import/export declarations were electronically
processed through NACCS. NACCS has significantly reduced the overall time for customs clearance
and other related procedures, compared to manual processing without using the system.
Importers/exporters are notified electronically of the permit of their import/export through NACCS,
when they declare using NACCS.

For details about NACCS, please see the following web page:
http://www.naccs.jp/e/aboutnaccs/aboutnaccs.html.
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 5 -

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports
3.1.3 Rules of origin
Page 32, para 3.20
The Secretariat report states Japan also applies preferential rules of origin under the Generalized
System of Preferences (GSP) […] to benefit from preferential duties, certificates of origin, issued
by authorized institutions in the exporting country.

Question 3
Could Japan provide an update on any progress to implement the Ministerial Decision on
Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs from Nairobi, and include an explanation of any aspects of the
Ministerial Decision that Japan does not intend to implement.

RESPONSE
In accordance with paragraph 4.2 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on preferential rules of origin
for least developed countries, Japan has submitted the communication regarding its
implementation of the provisions of the Decision to the Committee on Rules of Origin on December
2016.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports
3.1.4 Tariffs
3.1.4.1 MFN applied tariff
Page 34, Paragraph 3.25
The report states that, Japan's import tariffs on agricultural products, with an average of 16.3%,
are higher than tariffs on non-agricultural products, with an average of 3.6%. Furthermore, the
standard deviation of 33.4 for tariffs on agricultural products indicates that tariffs vary
considerably among agricultural products with over one quarter duty free and a maximum tariff
(ad valorem equivalent) of about 390%. In addition, 17.5% of agricultural tariff lines are
non-ad valorem.
The report also notes that the quota allocation method for agricultural lines remains complex.
Australia agrees with these comments.

Question 4
Does Japan have any plans to simplify the presently complicated system of tariffs and levies
applied to sugar imports and dairy imports, which represent a barrier and discourage efficient
commercial arrangements between importers and overseas suppliers of food and agricultural
goods including ingredients used in the Japanese food-processing sector?

RESPONSE
The Government of Japan administrates the current system of tariffs and levies applied to sugar
and dairy imports, in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement. The Government of Japan
continues to encourage efficient commercial arrangements by providing relevant information
regarding our import system to stakeholders, including importers and overseas suppliers.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.6 Standards and other technical requirements
Page 61, para 3.126
The report lists the main agencies responsible for standards, technical requirements, and
conformity assessment.

Question 5
Could Japan outline the consultation process involved in the development of a mandatory standard
or technical regulation in Japan?
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 6 -

RESPONSE
In general, the agency responsible hears opinions from stakeholders and prepares the draft of a
mandatory standard or technical regulation. The agency submits the draft to relevant advisory
council of the agency, which is composed of members from industries, academics, representatives
of consumers and so on, for deliberation. The council deliberates the draft and prepares its
proposal. Then, public comments for the proposal are invited. After that the council deliberates on
the proposal, at which time the submitted comments are taken into consideration, and reports the
result of the deliberation to the competent Minister. Finally, public announcement of the
mandatory standard or technical regulation is carried out by publication in the Official Gazette.

Question 6
How could a foreign business participate in the standards development process for technical
regulations?

RESPONSE
Japan has been implementing a transparent process as follows, in order to give opportunities for
stakeholders, including foreign parties, to participate in the process.
a) Any stakeholders can submit their comments at the opportunities of public comments
mentioned in the answer for Q5. Relevant information is uploaded on the relevant website.
b) Based on the WTO/TBT Agreement, Japan announces publicly to allow stakeholders to have
comment submission period (at least 60 days) before establishment or revision of technical
regulations.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.6 Standards and other technical requirements
Page 61, para 3.127
The Secretariat report states that as at 31 March 2016, there were 10,542 Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS).

Question 7
What percentage of these are mandatory standards versus voluntary standards?

RESPONSE
All the JIS are voluntary standards, while some acts refer to JIS in their technical regulations.

Question 8
What percentage of JIS mandatory standards are aligned to international standards?

RESPONSE
All the JIS are voluntary standards. See the answer for Q7.
97 % of all JIS that have corresponding international standards are harmonized with the
international standards.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.7 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
Page 63, Paragraph 3.142
The report states that, according to Japanese authorities, SPS measures applied by Japan are
based on the relevant international standard and that when corresponding international standards
do not exist, domestic standards or technical regulations are needed.

Question 9
Does Japan have plans to facilitate agricultural trade further by increasing the harmonisation of its
food safety requirements and phytosanitary treatment requirements with international standards
and/or by accepting equivalence of other countries' systems and testing? In particular, would
Japan re-consider its view on the International Plant Protection Convention's assessment that the
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 7 -

efficacy of phytosanitary treatments can be considered commodity-wide rather than specific to
particular varieties or cultivars?

RESPONSE
SPS measures of Japan are in general based on relevant international standards or, where its
measures do not conform to relevant international standards, they are based on scientific risk
assessment, in accordance with the SPS Agreement. Furthermore, with a view to harmonizing with
relevant international standards, Japan reviews its measures where necessary.
In addition, Japan would accept other countries' systems and testing as equivalent upon request, if
Japan determines the measures are equivalent as Japan's, based upon information by exporting
countries.
Regarding food safety on imported foods, Japan accepts the results of inspections by inspection
agencies that foreign governments recognize that they have certain control by foreign government
agencies and that they have internationally valid inspection accuracy.
For the detailed procedures of registration to the Japan's list of Foreign Official Laboratories and
the Japan's list of Foreign Official Laboratories, please refer to the following URLs.
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/importedfoods/dl/1-10.pdf
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/importedfoods/1-10.html

Regarding the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Japan has already established
some phytosanitary treatment requirements on a commodity basis, instead of variety or cultivar
basis, pursuant to the relevant provisions included in Article VII of the IPPC.

Question 10
Would Japan consider aligning its Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and additives standards with
international CODEX standards? (For example, hydrogen peroxide on sultanas and fludioxinil for
mangoes.)

RESPONSE
Japan takes into account the Codex standards whenever reviewing Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) for agricultural chemicals and food additive standards, in accordance with Article 3.1 of the
WTO SPS Agreement. Japan, when necessary, sets food standards different from Codex standards
based on scientific evidence. For example, more restrictive MRLs of pesticide in some commodities
can be established to protect consumers' health if dietary exposure estimated from national
consumption data is above health-based guidance value (e.g. ADI, ARfD). This measure is
consistent with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.
Japan recognizes that there are no international standards on hydrogen peroxide on sultanas, and
that the Codex MRL for fludioxinil in mangoes was established in terms of post-harvest use. Japan
may review or set food standards if requests are made and supporting data are provided.
Japan continues to make an effort to establish food standards on the basis of sound science and in
harmony with international standards.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.8 Labelling and Packaging Requirements
Page 66, Paragraph 3.153
The report states that, with regard to food labelling, some food labelling provisions, which had
previously been scattered across three separate laws, have been gathered into a single new Food
Labelling Act promulgated on 28 June 2013. To implement the Act, a Food Labelling Standard
establishing specific labelling requirements was defined. The Act and Standard entered into force
on 1 April 2015.
Australia understands that Japan mandates country of origin labelling for a range of processed
foods under its Food Labelling Law, and is considering expanding the scope of its country of origin
labelling requirements.

Question 11
Could you please outline the current requirements for country of origin labelling, and the changes
that are being considered?
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 8 -

RESPONSE
Under the current rules, with regard to part of the processed food domestically produced and sold,
Japan imposes the obligation to indicate the origin of ingredients for processed food products,
composing more than 50% of the weight by a single agricultural /livestock /fishery ingredient.
Imported processed foods are not required to contain labelling of place of origin of their
ingredients, but it is required to label country of origin.
Japan intends to revise the Food Labeling Standards (Ordinance of the Cabinet Office No.10 of
2015) in order that all processed foods domestically produced will be required to label place of
origin for the largest ingredients, by weight in the final products. But the rules remain completely
unchanged for imported processed food.
Question 12
When does Japan intend on notifying its proposed changes to the WTO committee on technical
barriers to trade?

RESPONSE
Japan is planning to submit the relevant notification to the WTO Secretariat, in accordance with
the TBT Agreement in 2017, before the publication of the relevant amendment of the Food
Labeling Standards.

Question 13
Can Japan please provide additional information regarding the labelling of imported Wagyu beef?

RESPONSE
The origin labeling requirements, which are considered for revision, cover all processed foods
manufactured or processed in Japan. But non-prepackaged foods* are excluded.
The labeling requirements for perishable foods remain unchanged.
* Non-prepackaged foods: When one eats or buy processed foods, one can know the ingredients of
foods at the establishment where they are sold. (e.g. foods at restaurants or sold by measure.)

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.10 Intellectual property rights
Page 77, Table 3.31 Summary of protection of intellectual property rights, 2016
Australia notes that Japan publishes details of Geographical Indicators (GIs) that have been
applied for and those that are registered on the MAFF website. The information on those that are
protected is very brief and does not contain the rules that a product must meet in order to use the
GI.

Question 14
Could Japan please advise as to whether information on the rules for registered GIs are publicly
available, and if so, provide a link to this information?

RESPONSE
The information regarding GI is made available to the general public. The requested information is
available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ("MAFF") as follows
(Japanese): http://www.maff.go.jp/j/shokusan/gi_act/outline/index.html.

For English translation of GI Act, please see the below
website:http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?ft=1&re=01&dn=1&co=01&ia=03&x
=0&y=0&ky=%E7%89%B9%E5%AE%9A%E8%BE%B2%E6%9E%97&page=1.
(The amended GI Act translated in English will be posted on the database shortly.)

Question 15
Australia notes that Kobe beef has been protected as a GI. Could Japan clarify whether Kobe beef
is required to be born and raised in Kobe? For how long would the animal need to be raised in
Kobe if not born there?
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 9 -

RESPONSE
The registered GI producer group (Kobe Beef Marketing and Distribution Promotion Association)
established criteria for Kobe Beef in 1983 and has distributed the certified beef to the market. The
same criteria was adopted for the GI Kobe Beef.
To be precise, Kobe beef must be the bullock or virgin Tajima cow born in Hyogo Prefecture from a
Tajima cow having a pure lineage, and such bullock or virgin cow has been necessarily bred and
raised by designated farmers in Hyogo prefecture (the period is during the age of 28 months to 60
months) and slaughtered at one of the designated slaughterhouses in Hyogo prefecture. It must
also pass strict grading for BMS (Beef Marbling Standard), weight limitations and other criteria. For
the reason, the whole production process must be taken place in Hyogo prefecture.
For your reference, "Kobe" is the capital city of Hyogo prefecture, and "Tajima" is the region of
northern Hyogo Prefecture.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures affecting production and trade
3.3.10 Intellectual property rights
3.3.10.1 Intellectual property rights Overview
Page 76, Table 3.31 – Copyright and related rights

Question 16
Have the copyright infringement exceptions in Japan's Copyright Law relating to personal or family
use, and educational purposes, been tested in the Japanese court system? Is further guidance on
this prescribed in regulation, or other material?

RESPONSE
The followings are examples of judicial judgements on exceptions of copyright for personal or
family use. The Government of Japan has no official regulation or guideline concerning these
exceptions.
- Sho 48 (wa) No.2198
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/373/014373_hanrei.pdf (Japanese only)
- Hei 17 (ne) No.3258
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/816/034816_hanrei.pdf (Japanese only)
- Hei 25 (ne) No.10089
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/579/084579_hanrei.pdf (Japanese only)
As far as we know, there is no specific judicial judgement on exceptions of copyright for
educational use. However, the Government of Japan published the explanatory material for these
exceptions.
http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/seidokaisetsu/pdf/gakko_chosakuken.pdf (Japanese
only)

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures affecting production and trade
3.3.10 Intellectual property rights
3.3.10.6 Geographical Indications
Page 81, Paragraph 3.191
The report refers to Japan's Act on Protection of the Names of Specific Agricultural, Forestry and
Fishery Products and Foodstuffs.

Question 17
Could Japan provide an update on the provision of objection procedures for geographical
indications, including any objection procedures available to third parties in relation to geographical
indications proposed to be registered and/or protected in Japan pursuant to an international
agreement to which Japan is a party?

RESPONSE
Any person may submit a written opposition for both GI products proposed to be registered under
the domestic law and GI products proposed to be designated through international agreements for
three months from the date of the publication. The opposition procedures for the GI products to be
WT/TPR/M/351/Add.1

- 10 -

designated pursuant to an international agreement is the same as those for the GI products to be
registered.
For your reference, information is available for the below link (Japanese):
http://www.maff.go.jp/j/shokusan/gi_act/outline/index.html.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.10 Intellectual property rights
Page 81, Paragraph 3.193
The report states that, the GI name must be linked with the location where the product is
produced and a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product must be essentially
attributable to its geographical origin. It also requires that a product be continuously produced
throughout a certain period of time in a particular region.

Question 18
What does Japan mean by "that a product be continuously produced throughout a certain period of
time in a particular region"? What are the certain "periods of time"? Do they differ by product/GI?

RESPONSE
A geographical indication is a protection system for products that have a specific geographical
origin and possess qualities, reputation or other characteristics that are due to that origin. The
qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially attributed to the place
of origin. Since the qualities, characteristics or reputation arise from the geographical place of
production, there must be a clear link between the product and its original place of production.
We recognize that in order to identify the link between the characteristics of the product and the
production area, this link must be maintained for a certain period of time. Thus, approximately
25 years of production record is suggested as necessary element to show that the product has a
causal link to the geographical area.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade
3.3.10 Intellectual property rights
3.3.10.8 Enforcement
Page 83, Paragraph 3.203.
The report notes "the number of IPR infringement cases handled by domestic courts has remained
on an upward trend since 2009. Over 600 cases were dealt with by enforcement institutions in
2015."

Question 19
Could Japan provide a breakdown of the 600 cases into broad IP categories?

RESPONSE
The breakdown of cleared cases in 2015 is as follows:
- a violation of the Trademark Act: 316 cases
(Accessories and purses account for approximately half of confiscated goods.)
- a violation of the Copyright Act: 239 cases
(CDs and DVDs account for about 90% of confiscated goods.)
- others: 51 cases
"others" includes violations of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and other violations.

Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/351)
4 TRADE POLICIES IN SELECTED SECTORS
4.1 Agriculture
4.1.2 Agricultural policies
4.1.2.1 Legal and institutional framework
Page 91, Paragraph 4.9
The report states that, Japan's agricultural policy is set out in the Food, Agriculture and Rural
Areas Basic Plan, which is reviewed roughly every five years. The current Plan, adopted in March
2015, sets out the objectives of doubling incomes in agriculture and rural areas over the next ten
years by increasing domestic and export demand, improving value chains, reducing costs,