WT/DS44/R
Page477
XI. ANNEX ONTRANSLATION PROBLEMS .............................477
A. LIST OFTRANSLATION ISSUES .........................477
1. APPENDIX TOTRANSLATION ISSUE 16..................485
2. APPENDIX TOTRANSLATION ISSUE 19..................492
B. RESPONSES BYTHE TRANSLATION EXPERTS ..............492
XI. ANNEX ONTRANSLATION PROBLEMS
A. LIST OFTRANSLATION ISSUES
Issue 1: "taisaku" .
United States: "countermeasure "(used inmany contexts e.g., asliberalization, distribution, or
promotion countermeasures ).
Japan: Inmany contexts, theJapanese word"taisaku" should bemoreappropriately translated
as"measure" or"policy inresponse to." TheEnglish word "countermeasure" has
anegative connotation notconveyed bytheJapanese original. Forexample, an
expression suchas"shou-enerugi (energy-saving) taisaku" isquitecommon inJapanese,
anditwould beawkward totranslate itinto"energy saving countermeasure. ..."]
(fn.11,p.19ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 2: MITI 'sdistribution policies asdescribed intheFirstInterim Report, (USEx.64-6,
p.8).
United States: "The First Interim Report identified acentral theme thatwould underlie MITI's
distribution policy: theneedtolimitcompetition indistribution inorder tocreate
stability andhighprices forthebenefit ofdomestic manufacturers "(para. 78ofthe
USFirstSubmission).
Japan: "Infact, the[first interim] report notes thatonly establishment ofappropriate
competition conditions would stimulate themodernization ofdistribution mechanism .
Moreover, thereport draws noconnection atallbetween competitive conditions in
thedistribution sector andthemanufacturing sector. Instead, thereport noted that
vertical integration didnotnecessarily mean thatdistribution systems would be
rationalized." (fn.88,p.45ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 3: Translation ofaquote from thearticle: Distributors inTough Environment, The
Distribution Structures Continue toChange, Nihon Shashin Kogyo Tsushin, 1May
1994, (USEx.94-10, p.7).
United States: "In1994, aJapanese industry journal noted changes intheJapanese filmdistribution
system, suchasarevision oftherebate schemes andtheopening ofmore discount
stores, butconcluded that'alimit totheexpansion ofsales channels seems tobe
appearing 'andthat'theactual network hasnotchanged much'"(para. 159oftheUS
FirstSubmission).
Japan: "'Network 'should actually betranslated as'netprices 'andtheUnited States hasfailed
torecognize thatthefirstpassage actually relates tothecamera distribution industry,
nottofilm." (fn.123,p.57ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).WT/DS44/R
Page478
Issue 4: "keiretsuka" asusedintheFirst Interim Report, (USEx.64-4).
United States: "...Keiretsu-nizing saleschannels doesnotnecessarily mean, fromanational economic
perspective, thateachofthedistribution structures willberationalized; thedirect
objective issaidtobetosecure andexpand the[market share] ofindividual
manufacturers." (First Interim Report, USEx.64-6, p.10).
Japan: "Please notethatwedonotagree withtheUSconstruction oftheterm'keiretsu-nizing '
asthistermcanhavemany meanings depending upon thecontext. Thus, wehave
translated thistermbased upontheproper context, inthiscase,'vertically integrating '"
(fn.139,p.61ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 5: "keiretsuka" asusedintheSecond Interim Report, (USEx.65-2).
United States: "...Forexample, manufacturers 'increased distribution activities leads to'vertical
keiretsunization 'which cancreate theharm ofamonopoly." (Second Interim Report,
USEx.65-2, p.5-6).
Japan: "Again, theUSconstruction oftheterm'keiretsunization 'isbetter translated inthis
caseas'vertical integration '"(fn.140,p.62ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 6: "keiretsuka" asusedinthe1971 Basic Plan(USEx.71-10) .
United States: "Furthermore, duetothelateemergence ofthedistribution sector, manufacturers have
advanced [their] control ofdistribution by'keiretsu-nizing '.When thisisdone
excessively, thedistribution sector willloseitsautonomy, andbuying activities are
hindered." (1971 Basic Plan, USEx.71-10, p.8).
Japan: "Again, theUSconstruction oftheterm'keiretsunization 'isbetter translated inthis
caseas'vertical integration '"(fn.144,p.63ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 7: Quote: "(fuji tokonika wa)kourino dankaimade seibishite ikitai tokorono yôdearu "
from: Let'sAllHave Cameras -Film, Printing Paper Promotion ofTrading
NormalizationTriggeredbyaMonochromePhotosensitiveMaterialsPriceIncrease,
Zenren Tsuho, December 1967, (USEx.67-15) .
United States: "Themanufacturers aretaking thisopportunity tostarttaking action onthedistribution
channel aswellastostrengthen transaction terms withthetokuyakuten. '[Fujiand
Konika] want [distribution] allthewaytotheretail level',notjustbetween Fuji's
tokuyakutens andresellers, andbetween Konica 'stokuyakutens andresellers." (US
Ex.67-15, p.3).
Japan: "'FujiandKonika wanttorationalize transactions allthewaytotheretail level.'The
UStranslation implies thatFujiandKonica weretrying tovertically integrate, which
mischaracterizes thearticle." (fn.145,p.64ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Japan notes thatonesource theUnited States citestoprove itsallegation thatthe
distribution policies were designed toencourage single-brand distribution doesnot
supportthisclaim](Wholesale:So-calledKeiretsu-kaProblem-CourseUnclear,Nihon
Shashin Kogyo Tsushin, 1November 1967, p.8,USEx.67-14).WT/DS44/R
Page479
Issue 8: Quote: "ribêto hitotsu wotoriagete mitemo gyoukaitoshiteno kankôga dekiagatte
ireba dokkinhôno unyôniyori gaishino yukisugi wochekkudekiru" from: Draft
StandardContractforFilmwithCriteriaforStandardizationofTransactionTerms,
Zenren Tsuho, August 1971, p.5,(USEx.71-11, p.1).
United States: "Thearticle elaborated that'theguidelines themselves maybedescribed asanattempt
toequalize theconditions ofcompetition. 'Forinstance, 'rebates were adopted so
thatoncetheybecome common practice intheindustry, theinflux offoreign capital
maybechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law'."(para. 110oftheUS
FirstSubmission).
Japan: "'theabnormal useofrebates byforeign capital maybechecked bytheapplication
oftheAntimonopoly Law.'Inaddition, theUSreference torebates becoming "common
practice intheindustry" hasnobasis intheoriginal text. (fn.152,p.67ofJapan's
FirstSubmission).
Issue 9: Quote: "masani 'kenzenka 'wasusunda" from: FujiFilm'sResult ofStricter Policy
onReceivables, Zenren Tsuho, March 1968, p.5-7,(USEx.68-2, p.1).
United States: "Justasthispractice offorcing goods [ontokuyakutens] wasended, ultimately 'Fujifilm
tightened itspolicy onreceivables '...'Consequently, [Fujifilm 'sfinancial] soundness
hasindeed progressed .Thewellestablished photosensitive materials tokuyakuten have
finally beendonein."(para. 115oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "TheUStranslation implies thatFujifilm improved itsfinancial position bypressuring
thetokuyakuten. Amore accurate translation isthat'thesoundness oftransactions
hasindeed progressed '."(fn.163,p.71ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Japan notes thatthecontention inpara. 119oftheUSFirstSubmission that"shortly
after thenew transaction terms went intoeffect, Misuzu 'sfinancial situation
deteriorated" findsnosupport intheZenren Tsuho article cited. (Relationship Between
MajorPhotoMaterialsWholesalersandManufacturersFromtheStandpointofIndustry's
Photo Materials, Zenren Tsuho, June1968, p.5-7,USEx.68-5).
Issue 10: Reference to:Four Fuji-Group Distributors Reported Unimpressive Results in
Spite ofLowInterest Rates, Shukan Shashin Sokuho, 24June 1994, p.2-4(US
Ex.94-11, p.1).
United States: "Other Japanese analysts haveconcluded thatdistributors remain highly dependent
onmanufacturers ."(para. 159oftheUSFirstSubmission). Asonefinancial analyst
wrote when hereported theprimary wholesalers 'profitability for1994, "The ratio
ofnetprofits tototalcapital gives outadistressing series ofzeros afterthedecimal
point." (fn.163oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "However, thesource cited insupport ofthisproposition states onlythatprimary
wholesalers havelowrates ofreturn ,andoffers nobasis onwhich tosupport theUS
claim." (fn.164,p.71ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).WT/DS44/R
Page480
Issue 11: Theuseofquantitative standards bytheLarge Scale Retail Store Council inmaking
itsadjustment determinations according toArticle 7oftheLarge Scale Retail Store
Law, LawNo.80,24May1991, (Japan Ex.C-1; USEx.74-4).
United States: "Theexamination ofanewstorebytheLarge Store Council isbased uponmathematical
formulas forcomparing theCommercial Population andlarge scale retail store
Occupation Rateofonecitywithsimilar cities. Thequantitative approach 'allows
theLarge Store Council toration retail space.'Large Store Council Decision,
"Investigatory Procedures fortheAdjustment oftheBusiness Activity ofLarge Scale
Retail Stores, 14November 1991, USEx.91-4." (fn.190,p.68oftheUSFirst
Submission).
Japan: "The standards usedbythelarge Scale Retail Store Council indetermining whether
torecommend oneofthese limited adjustments alsodonotresult inarestriction on
theopening oflarge stores. TheUSwrongfully implies thattheuseofquantitative
standards bytheLarge Scale Retail Store Council inmaking itsadjustment
determinations 'allows [it]toration retail space.'These quantitative factors arenever
determinative. They aresimply some ofthefactors taken intoaccount, along with
avariety ofquantitative factors intheoverall Large Scale Retail Store Lawprocess.
(fn.328,p.120ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 12: Reference totheJFTC adhocstudy group report: Concerning theReevaluation
ofGovernment Regulations intheDistribution Sector, Government Regulation
andCompetition Policy Research Council, JFTC, June1995, p.23,(USEx.95-11) .
United States: "TheJFTC Council alsofound that,asofMarch 1995, anumber oflocalgovernment
bodies were stillimposing theirownwritten guidelines onstore openings, so-called
augmentingorsupplementaryregulations,whicharebeyondthescopeandrequirements
oftheLarge Stores Law, inthattheyapply tostores withafloor space oflessthan
500square meters. Itconcluded that:'These excessive regulations andnon-transparent
administrative guidance onthepartoflocalgovernment bodies andpublic entities make
those planning toopenstores continue tobearunreasonable burdens intheform of
demands requiring veryintricate storeopening plans tobesubmitted andother similar
demands. '"(para. 218andfn.268ofUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "The United States citessurveys bytheMCA andtheJFTC adhocstudy group that
allegedly document theexistence ofexcessive local restrictions. These surveys,
however, arenotrepresentative ofcurrent conditions. TheMCA Survey wasconducted
in1995. TheJFTC adhocstudy group survey, meanwhile, presented only3cases
ofexcessive localregulations. Inaddition, theUnited States erroneously translates
theJFTC adhocstudy group report, suggesting thereport confirmed thatmany
excessive localregulations exists, resulting inasignificant burden onstoreopeners."
(fn.329,p.120ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).WT/DS44/R
Page481
Issue 13: Reference to:Concerning Immediate Measures Regarding Notification toEstablish
Large Scale Retail Stores, Sankyoku No.36,issued byDG,MITI, 30January
1982 (USEx.82-2, Japan Ex.C-16).
United States: "MITIinstituted,throughDirectiveNo.36,a'priorexplanation'requirementtoprecede
thebuilder 'sArticle 3Notification, which obligated thenotifier toconsult with, and
obtain theconsent of,local retailers before submitting itsArticle 3Notification .
(para. 202USFirstSubmission).
Japan: Japan cannot findanyphrase tothateffect intheCircular. (fn.338,p.123ofJapan's
FirstSubmission).
Issue 14: "jimotosetsumei" under theLarge Scale Retail Stores Law.
United States: "In1992, MITI replaced the'prior explanation 'process withaprocedure for'local
explanation '....Local explanation wasimplemented byDirective No.25'Guidance
forLocal Explanation toThose WhoSubmitted aNotification forNewConstruction
ofaClass ILarge Scale Retail Store, 29January 1992'."(para. 213andfn.259of
theUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "[Under theLarge Retail Stores Law, since 1992] 'allthatisrequired isthatthelarge
store planner make apublic briefing after theArticle 3notification (new store
construction) butbefore theArticle 5notification (new store opening) '."(fn.340,
p.123ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 15: Quote from theJFTC AdHocStudy Group Report: Concerning theReevaluation
ofGovernment Regulations intheDistribution Sector, Government Regulation
andCompetitionPolicyResearchCouncil,JFTC,June1995,p.17,(USEx.95-11).
United States: "According totheJune1995report totheJFTC fromitsGovernment Regulation and
Competition Policy Research Council, theLarge Store Council 'sconsideration ofa
large store notification caneasily reflect theviews oflocalretailers. 'According to
thisJFTC Council, 'existing local retailers remain influential members ofthese
organizations 'andeven'consumer andacademic representatives [ontheCouncils]
haveclose tiestolocalretailers '"(para. 228oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "The USmisleadingly citesthisphrase astosuggest that'these organizations 'refer
tothe'Large Scale Retail Store Council .'However, theJapanese textofthereport
clearly shows that'these organizations 'refer tothe'Chamber ofCommerce and
Industry ."Moreover, Japan submits thattheUSinsertion "[ontheCouncils] "into
thesame sentence iserroneous. (fn.344,p.124ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).WT/DS44/R
Page482
Issue 16: Translation ofthePremiums Law, FutoKeihinrui Oyobi FutoHyoji Boshiho, Law
Against Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representation, LawNo.134,
15May1962); SeeAppendix toIssue 16.
United States: UStranslation ofthePremiums Lawof1962 (USEx.62-6).
Japan: Anumber ofpoints wereindicated onacopyoftheUStranslation ofthePremiums
LawbyJapan inhandwriting. Premiums Lawof1962, Japan Ex.D-1.(fn.363,p.130
ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 17: "kamera-rui" .
United States: "TheJFTC soonactedtoprotect thecamera cartel fromcompetition onpremium offers.
OnOctober 15,1965, theJFTC issued anotification entitled, 'Restrictions onPremium
Offers intheCamera Industry '...Thecamera notification didnotclearly distinguish
whattheterm'related products 'meant, nordiditexplain whether itsprohibition applied
onlytopremiums connected totransactions directly involving 'cameras andrelated
products 'oranytransaction byacovered business ...."(para. 288oftheUSFirst
Submission).
Japan: "The Japanese expression 'kamera-rui 'should betranslated asthe'camera category '
andnotas'camera andrelated products '.Asamatter ofJapanese language itcannot
cover photographic filmandpaper. Aleading Japanese dictionary "Dai-Jirin" defines
"rui(category)" tobea"collection ofsimilar items. Japan Ex.D-68" (para. 457
andfn.431,p.158ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 18: Quote from theZenren article: Discussion onProgress ofFairTrade Council
Focuses onMaking FairCompetition Code Fully Known, Zenren Tsuho, August
1987, pp.16-20, (USEx.87-7andJapan Ex.D-70) .
United States: "...application offilmanddeveloping andprinting wasfundamental tosecuring support
fortheRetailers Code andthe[Camera andRelated Products Retailers FairTrade
Council] fromtheretailers association. '...wefirstunderstood photosensitive materials
anddevelopmentprintingtoalsobeincluded....Itwould,'indeed,havebeenimpossible
topersuade Zenren members whose main lineofbusiness isdevelopment printing to
contribute if[theregulations] only[apply to]hardware '."(para. 348oftheUSFirst
Submission).
Japan: "Instead itshould betranslated asfollows 'many people expressed theviewtotheeffect
that,since [thecode] applies onlytohardware, itisimpossible topersuade members
[ofZenren] whose main lineofbusiness isdeveloping andprinting [tocontribute] '."
(fn.435,p.160ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).WT/DS44/R
Page483
Issue 19: Translation oftheeditorial: FairCompetition Codes, Sweet Fantasies andIllusions
Ought tobeTaboo, Shashin Kogyo Junpo, 1August 1987; SeeAppendix to
Issue 19.
United States: Original UStranslation in:USEx.87-8.
Japan: Version withJapan'scorrections: "...Aphoto industry journal editorial intheUS
EvidentiaryAppendix(Editorial:FairCompetitionCodes;SweetFantasiesandIllusions
Ought tobeTaboo, Syashin Kogyo Junpo, 1August 1987, USEx87-8), although
notquoted intheUSsubmission, appears asifthetranslation wasrewritten inorder
tobluramain theme oftheeditorial; whoisresponsible tothefactthattheretailers ’
codedoesnotcover filmandpaper?" (fn.437,p.161ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 20: "teki-hatsu ":quote ofstatement ofadirector oftheJFTC 'sPremiums and
Representations Office in:"Fair Trade Council Established" Operated byZenren,
WillRespect "Fair Competition Code" -Urgent Need toMake Code Known by
October Start, Zenren Tsuho, July1987, p.6-11, (USEx.87-5, p.3;Japan Ex.
D-82, p.3).
United States: "The approval oftheCode means thattheroleweplaytotake'enforcement actions '
onviolations willbelefttotheFairTrade Council. Ifthisexpectation isnotmet,
[theapproval] willhavenomeaning." (para. 351ofUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "The quotation ofaDirector oftheJFTC (Zenren Tsuho, July1987) intheUS
submissionerroneouslytranslates'teki-hatsu'(discovery)as'enforcementaction'.Japan
Ex.D-82." (fn.449,p.166ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 21: Quote "...sarani kibishiku bunshoniyoru keikokuga hasserareru" from: Don't
Give uponExposing andForwarding Materials [Regarding Violations] -JFTC
ProbingNon-Members''RepresentationViolations',ZenrenTsuho,February1988,
pp.10-11, (USEx.88-2; Japan Ex.D-83) .
United States: "Bytheendoflastyear, thenumber of'Code violations 'handled bytheFairTrade
Council hadreached 294cases. ...Almost allwhohavereceived repeated caution or
warnings werenon-members, thatis,while amember 'sstance isrectified byaverbal
caution, 'amore severe warning inwriting 'isissued toanon-member."
Japan: "The article inJapanese doesnotspeak of'more severe warning inwriting ',but'a
more strict stepissuing awritten warning '."(fn.451, p.167ofJapan'sFirst
Submission).WT/DS44/R
Page484
Issue 22: Statement byaJFTC official: Suggestions onHow theFairTrade Promotion
Council Should Be,Yamada, Director ofthePremiums andRepresentation
Guidance Division, JFTC, Zenren Tsuho, May1983, p.14,(USEx.83-9).
United States: "InMay1983, theDirector oftheJFTC 'sPremiums andRepresentations Guidance
Division pressed thePromotion Council toexpand itsoperation intonewareas: 'it
isofcritical importance todevelop rulesonebyoneagainst dumping andloss-leader
advertising '."(para. 325oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "The proper translation should be'Also, withregard tounjustifiable lowprices and
baitadvertising, itisimportant topileuponebyone.'Theoriginal Japanese sentence
doesnotrefertoany'rules',To'pileup'what? isnotclearevenfrom thecontext"
(fn.454,p.168ofJapan'sFirstSubmission).
Issue 23: "jishu-kisei"asreferredtoin"Self-RegulatingMeasuresRegardingMakingBusiness
Dealings withTrading Partners Fair" of22June 1982, (USEx.82-8).
United States: "The domestic photographic industry responded totheJFTC 'sguidance inJune1982
when itpromulgated 'Self-Regulating Measures 'Regarding Making Business Dealings
With Trading Partners Fair." (para. 321oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "Japanese word 'jishu-kisei 'means simply 'self-regulation 'andnotself-regulating
measures '."(fn.1,p.6ofJapan'sWritten Responses tothePanel'sInitial Questions).
Issue 24(1): Quotefrom"ConsumerLifeandtheFairCompetitionCodes"(ShohishanoKurashi
toKosei Kyoso Kiyaku) 1995edition, AllJapan FairTrade Council Federation,
(USEx.95-9, p.2).
United States: "The JFTC willdirectly regulate those whodonotparticipate intheCodes, butas
longastheCodesareobservedandrecognizedashavingbeenestablishedinaccordance
withnormal business practices, theJFTC usestheFairCompetition Codes asreference
when itapplies thelaw." (para. 360oftheUSFirstSubmission).
Japan: "Thequote should betranslated as'butwhen itisrecognized thattheCodes havebeen
observed andestablished asnormal business practices '."(fn.1,p.12ofJapan's
Responses tothePanel'sAdditional Questions).
Issue 24(2): Thequotation from "Fair Competition Code Regarding Representations inthe
Camera Category Retailers Industry", aJFTC commissioned pamphlet, 1987, (US
Ex.87-1).
United States: "[B]yvirtue ofthefactthatthisCode hasbeenestablished asnormal practice inthe
photographic industry tobestrictly obeyed, theJapan FairTrade Commission uses
itasreference when itapplies thePremiums Lawtooutsiders ."(para. 360ofthe
USFirstSubmission).
Japan: "Thecorrect translation should be'Thecode, bybeing strictly observed andestablished
asthenormal practices ofthephotographic industry, isusedasreference when the
JFTC applies thePremiums Lawtooutsiders '."(fn.1,p.12ofJapan'sResponses
tothePanel'sAdditional Questions).WT/DS44/R
Page485
1. APPENDIX TOTRANSLATION ISSUE 16:
United States: original version [textinbrackets]:
Japan: corrected version [initalics]
LAW AGAINST UNJUSTIFIABLE PREMIUMS
AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS
(Law No.134ofMay15,1962)
Amendment: LawNo.44ofMay30,1972
(First Amendment)
Article 1 (Purpose)
ThisLaw, inorder toprevent inducement ofcustomers bymeans ofunjustifiable
premiums andmisleading representations inconnection withtransactions ofacommodity andservice,
byestablishing special provisions fortheLawConcerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andthe
Maintenance ofFairTrade (Law No.54of1947), aimstosecure faircompetition, andthereby toprotect
theinterest ofconsumers ingeneral.
Article 2 (Definitions)
(1) Theterm"Premiums" asusedinthisLawshallmean any[goods] [article] ,money
orother kinds ofeconomic benefits which aregiven asmeans ofinducement ofcustomers, regardless
ofwhether adirect orindirect method isemployed, orwhether ornota[prize competition] [lottery]
method isused, by[abusiness] [anentrepreneur] toanother party inconnection withatransaction
involving acommodity orservice (transactions relating torealestate shallbeincluded inthisArticle
andthroughout therestofthisLaw), andwhich aredesignated bytheFairTrade Commission assuch.
(2) Theterm"representations" asusedinthisLawshallmean advertisement oranyother
[representation][description]which[abusiness][anentrepreneur]makesorusesasmeansofinducement
ofcustomers, withrespect tothesubstance ofthecommodity orservice which hesupplies ortheterms
ofsaleoranyother matter concerning thetransaction, andwhich aredesignated bytheFairTrade
Commission assuch.
Note:
Clause 1andClause 2."designation" =establishment ofpremiums andrepresentations under theprovisions ofArticle 2ofUnjustifiable
Premiums andMisleading Representations
Article 3 (Restriction orprohibition ofpremiums)
TheFairTradeCommissionmay,whenitfindsitnecessarytopreventunfairinducement
ofcustomers, limiteither themaximum value ofapremium orthe[sum total] [aggregate] amount
ofpremiums, thekindofpremiums ormethod ofoffering ofapremium oranyother matter relating
thereto, ormayprohibit theoffering ofapremium.WT/DS44/R
Page486
Note: Restriction onPremium Offers byLotteries orPrize Competition (FTC Notification No.3of1972)
[Restriction onPremium Offers toBusinesses (FTC Notification No.17of1967)]
[Restriction onPremium Offers toBusinesses (FTC Notification No.17of1967)]
Restriction onPremium Offers toGeneral Consumers (FTC Notification No.5of1977)
Restriction onPremium Offers inNewspaper Industry (FTC Notification No.15of1964)
Restriction onPremium Offers inChocolate Industry (FTC Notification No.8of1965)
Restriction onPremium Offers inCamera Industry (FTC Notification No.33of1965)
Restriction onPremium Offers inInstant Noodle Industry (FTC Notification No.11of1966)
Restriction onPremium Offers inCurry andpepper Industry (FTC Notification No.11of1967)
Restriction onPremium Offers inProcessed Tomato Food Industry (FTC Notification No.39of1967)
Restriction onPremium Offers inWheat Cleaning Industry (FTC Notification No.89of1968)
Restriction onPremium Offers inMagazine Industry (FTC Notification No.4of1977)
Restriction onPremium Offers inFrozen Bean Curd Industry (FTC Notification No.40of1970)
Restriction onPremium Offers inChewing Gum Industry (FTC Notification No.4of1971)
Restriction onPremium Offers inBiscuit Industry (FTC Notification No.36of1971)
Restriction onPremium Offers inSoySauce Industry (FTC Notification No.45of1977)
Restriction onPremium Offers inCosmetic Soap Industry (FTC Notification No.82of1971)
Restriction onPremium Offers inBean Paste Industry (FTC Notification No.47of1977)
Restriction onPremium Offers inHousehold Electric Appliances Industry
(FTC Notification No.2of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inSauce Industry (FTC Notification No.3of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inMargarine andShortening Industry (FTC Notification No.4of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inMatch Industry (FTC Notification No.5of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inAgricultural Machinery Industry (FTC Notification No.43of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inAutomobile Industry (FTC Notification No.44of1979)
Restriction onPremium Offers inLiquor Industry (FTC Notification No.6of1980)
Restriction onPremium Offers inTireIndustry (FTC Notification No.19of1980)
Restriction onPremium Offers inRubber andSynthetic Resins Footwear Industry
(FTC Notification No.25of1982)*
*[This listofJFTC Notifications issued pursuant toArticle [13][3]isnotexhaustive.]
Article 4 (Prohibition ofMisleading Representations)
Nobusiness shallmake suchrepresentation asprovided forinanyoneofthefollowing
paragraphs inconnection withtransactions regarding acommodity orservice which hesupplies:
(i) Anyrepresentation bywhich thequality, standard oranyother matter relating tothe
substance ofacommodity orservice [shall leadthegeneral consumer tobelieve that
itis][willbemisunderstood byconsumers ingeneral tobe]much better thantheactual
oneorthanthatofother businesses whoareinacompetitive relationship withthe
business concerned, andthereby which isfound likely toinduce customers unjustly
andtoimpede faircompetition;
(ii) Anyrepresentation bywhich price oranyother terms oftransaction ofacommodity
orservice will[lead thegeneral consumer] [willbemisunderstood byconsumers in
general] tobemuch more favourable tothe[other transacting parties] [customer] than
theactual oneorthanthose ofother businesses whoareinacompetitive
relationship withthebusiness concerned, andthereby which isfound likely toinduce
customers unjustly andtoimpede faircompetition; or
(iii) Inaddition tothosestipulated inthepreceding twosections, anyrepresentation bywhich
anymatter relating totransactions astoacommodity orservice islikely tobe
misunderstood bythegeneral consumer andwhich isdesignated bytheFairTradeWT/DS44/R
Page487
Commission assuch, finding itlikely toinduce customers unjustly andtoimpede fair
competition.
Note:
Section 3"designation" Representations onSoftDrinks without Juice, etc.,(FTC Notification No.4of1973) Misleading Representations
onCountry ofOrigin ofGoods (FTC Notification No.34of1973), Misleading Representations onCostofConsumer Credit (FTC Notification
No.13of1980), Misleading Representations onLoss-Leader Advertising ofRealEstate (FTC Notification No.14of1980), Misleading
Representations onLoss-Leader Advertising (FTC Notification No.13of1982).
Article 5 (Public Hearing andNotification)
(1) When theFairTrade Commission takesaction to[limit orprohibit inaccordance with]
[effect designation Article 2(definition) ordesignation] under theprovisions of[Article 2of]Section
[3][iii]ofthepreceding Article (restriction andprohibition ofpremiums), [ortolimitorprohibit under
theprovisions ofArticle 3]ortochange orabolish them, itshallholdapublic hearing based onthe
FairTrade Commission Rules andshallheartheopinions oftherelated businesses andthepublic.
(2) Designation, restriction, prohibition aswellasamendment andabolition thereof under
theprovisions ofthepreceding clause shallbemade bynotification.
Note:
Clause 1"Rules oftheFairTrade Commission" =Rules Concerning Public Hearing Under theProvision ofSec.5(1)ofActAgainst
Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representation (FTC Rules No.2ofJune1,1962).
Article 6 (Cease andDesist order)
(1) TheFairTrade Commission may, intheevent there isanactviolating therestriction
orprohibition under theprovisions ofArticle 3(restriction orprohibition ofpremiums) orviolating
theprovisions ofArticle 4(prohibition [on][of]misleading representations), order the[business]
[entrepreneur] concerned tocease suchanact,ortotakethemeasures necessary toprevent the
occurrence ofthesaidact,ortotakeanyothernecessary measures including making [thematters relating
to]theimplementation ofsuchmeasures public. Such anorder maybeissued evenwhen thesaid
violation hasalready ceased tooccur.
(2) TheFairTrade Commission shall, intheevent ithasissued anorder asstipulated in
thepreceding Clause (hereafter, "Cease andDesist Order"), make aNotification onthesaidorder
inaccordance withtheRules oftheFairTrade Commission.
(Previous Clause 2deleted; earlier Clause 3amended inpartandinserted intocurrent Clause 2(Law No.89ofNovember 12,1993, the
Administrative Procedures Law)
Note:
Clause 2of"Rules oftheFairTrade Commission": Notification oncease anddesist orders inaccordance withArticle 6(2)ofLawAgainst
Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representations; andArticle 1concerning therequest fortheopening of[adjudgment] [hearing]
procedure inaccordance withtheprovisions inClause 8(1)oftheLawthereof.
Article 7 (Relationship with theLaw Concerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly and
Maintenance ofFairTrade)
(1) Actsinviolation prescribed in[Section] [Clause] (1)ofthepreceding Article shall
bedeemed tobeunfair trade practices asprovided forin[the(Relationship with] theLawConcerning
Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andMaintenance ofFairTrade) forthepurpose ofapplying the
provisions ofArticle 8(1)(prohibited actsoftrade associations) andArticle 25(absolute liability) of
thesaidLawand,forthepurpose ofapplying theprovisions ofDivision 2(procedures) [or][of]ChapterWT/DS44/R
Page488
VIII(excluding theprovisions ofArticle 48(recommendation, recommendation decision) ofthesaid
Law, suchactsshall bealsodeemed asactsinviolation ofArticle 19(prohibition ofunfair trade
practices) ofthesaidLaw.
(2) Inadecision against actsinviolation asprovided forinthepreceding [Section] [clause
1ofArticle 7],"thematters provided forbythefirstsentence ofthesaid[subsection] [clause] may
beordered.
(3) TheFairTrade Commission, intheevent ithasinitiated hearing procedures against
actsinviolation asprovided forby[Section] [Clause] (1)ofthepreceding Article, orithasfiledan
application under Article 67(1)(immediate injunction) of[theLaw(Relationship with] theLaw
Concerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andMaintenance ofFairTrade), shallnotissue acease
anddesist order against thesaidacts.
Article 8 (Hearing Procedures, etc.)
(1) Aperson whocomplains about acease anddesist order mayrequest theFairTrade
Commission toinitiate hearing procedures ontheactinvolved inthesaidorder, within thirty days
fromthedayonwhich thenotification hasbeenmade under theprovisions ofArticle 6[(3)][(2)]in
accordance withthe[rules ofthe]FairTrade Commission [Rules] [Rules] .
(2) TheFairTrade Commission shall, intheevent arequest under theprovisions ofthe
preceding clause hasbeenmade, initiate hearing procedures onthesaidactwithout delay. Inthiscase
theprovisions of[Section] [Article] 50(4)(dateofthefirsthearing proceeding) oftheLawConcerning
Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andMaintenance ofFairTrade shallnotapply.
(3) Except inthecaseprovided forbythepreceding clause, theFairTrade Commission
shallnot,withrespect toanactagainst which acease anddesist order hasbeenissued, initiate hearing
procedures norfileanapplication asstipulated in[Section] [Clause] (3)ofthepreceding Article.
Note:
Clause 1"Rules oftheFairTrade Commission" =Sec.2oftheRules onNotification ofCease andDesist Order under theProvisions of
Sec.6(2)oftheLawAgainst Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representations Request forInitiation ofHearing Procedures under
theProvisions ofSec.8(1)oftheLaw.
Article 9 (Effect, etc.ofCease andDesist Orders)
(1) Acease anddesist order (except forthecaseinwhich arequest wasmade inaccordance
withClause (1)ofthepreceding Article) shallbe,aftertheperiod provided forinthesaidClause has
elapsed, construed asthefinal[andconclusive] decision forthepurpose ofapplying theprovisions
ofArticle 26(restriction onexercise oftherighttoclaim fordamages incourt andprescription) and
Article 90(iii)(penalties against violations offinal[andconclusive] decision) oftheLawConcerning
Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andformaintenance ofFairTrade.
(2) Incaseadecision onanact,forwhich arequest hasbeenmade under theprovisions
ofClause (1)ofthepreceding Article, hasbeenrendered (excluding adecision dismissing thesaid
request onaccount ofitsirregularity) thecease anddesist order concerning thesaidactshallloseits
effect.
(3) Theprovisions ofArticle 64(compulsory measures afterdecision) andSection 66(2)
(cancellation oralteration ofdecisions) oftheLawConcerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly and
Maintenance ofFairTrade shallapply mutatis mutandis toacease anddesist order.WT/DS44/R
Page489
Article 9-2 (Instruction byPrefectural Governors)
Aprefecturalgovernormay,wherehefindsexistenceofviolationofeithertherestriction
orprohibition prescribed intheprovisions ofArticle 3(restriction [and] [or]prohibition ofpremiums)
orArticle 4(prohibition ofmisleading representations), instruct the[business] [entrepreneur] concerned
tocease suchviolation, ortopublicize thematters relating tothesaideffect.
Addition ofthisArticle totheLaw(lawNo.44of1972)
Article 9-3 (Request forMeasures toFTC)
(1) Aprefectural governor may, inacasewhere the[business] [entrepreneur] concerned
doesnotcomply withtheinstruction issued under theprovisions ofthepreceding Article, orincases
where aprefectural governor finds itnecessary inorder toputanendtoanyviolation asprescribed
inthesaidArticle, ortoprevent theoccurrence ofsuchviolation asprescribed inthesaidArticle,request
theFairTrade Commission totakeappropriate measures inaccordance withtheprovisions ofthisLaw.
(2) TheFairTrade Commission [shall] [should] ,when requested under theprovisions of
thepreceding Clause, notify thesaidprefectural governor ofthemeasures which theFairTrade
Commission hastaken withrespect tothesaidviolation.
Article 9-4 (Collection ofreports andinspection, etc.)
(1) Aprefectural governor may, where hefinds itnecessary foraninstruction under the
provision ofArticle 9-2[instruction ofprefectural governors] orarequest under theprovision of
[Subsection] [Clause] (1)ofthepreceding [Section] [Article] ,ask[an][the]entrepreneur [concerned]
orother entrepreneurs whohavebusiness relationship withhimtosubmit areport onthepremiums
heoffers ortherepresentations hemakes, ormayhavehisstaffenteroffices orother places ofbusiness
oftheentrepreneur concerned or[related] [other] entrepreneurs [whohavebusiness relationship with
him],inspect accounting books, documents andothermatters, oraskquestions ofthepersons concerned.
(2) Thestaffwhoconduct aninspection oraskquestions inaccordance withtheprovision
ofthepreceding [Subsection] [Clause] shallcarrytheiridentification cards andshow themtothepersons
concerned.
(3) Theauthority under theprovision ofSubsection (1)shallnotbeconstrued asbeing
granted forthepurposes ofcriminal investigation.
Article 9-5 (FTC'sdirection andsupervision overprefectural governors)
TheFairTradeCommissionmaygivedirectionsorexercisesupervisionoverprefectural
governors withregard tothematters under theprovisions ofthisLaw.
Addition ofthisArticle Law(Law No.44of1972))
Article 10 (Fair Competition Codes)
(1) [Businesses] [Entrepreneurs] oratradeassociation may, uponobtaining authorization
from theFairTrade Commission inaccordance withtheRules oftheFairTrade Commission, withWT/DS44/R
Page490
respect tomatters relating topremiums orrepresentations, conclude orestablish anagreement ora
code, aiming atprevention ofunjust inducement ofcustomers andmaintaining faircompetition. The
same shallapply intheevent alterations thereto areattempted.
(2) TheFairTrade Commission, unless itfinds thatanagreement oracodeunder the
preceding [Section] [Clause] (hereinafter referred toas,faircompetition code,,) meets eachofthe
following[paragraphs][sections],shallnotgrantauthorizationunderthepreceding[Subsection][Clause]:
(i) Thatitisappropriate toprevent unjust inducement ofcustomers andtomaintain fair
competition;
(ii) Thatitisnotlikely unreasonably toimpede theinterests ofconsumers ingeneral or
therelated [businesses] [entrepreneurs] ;
(iii) Thatitisnotunjustly discriminatory; and
(iv) Thatitdoesnotrestrict unreasonably theparticipation inorwithdrawal fromthefair
competition code.
(3) TheFairTrade Commission, when itfindsthatthefaircompetition codeasauthorized
under [Subsection] [clause] (1)hasceased tomeeteachparagraph ofthepreceding [Subsection] [clause]
shallcancel thesaidauthorization. [Inthiscase, theprovisions ofSection 6(2)(summary hearing
forcease anddesist orders) shallapply mutatis mutandis.] [Inthiscase, theprovisions ofSection 6
(2)(summary hearing forcease anddesist orders) shall apply mutatis mutandis.]
(4) TheFairTrade Commission, incaseithastaken ameasure under theprovisions of
Clause (1)orthepreceding Clause, shallmake thesaidmeasure public byanotification inaccordance
withtheRules oftheFairTrade Commission.
(5) TheprovisionsofArticle48(recommendation,recommendationdecision)andArticle49
(initiation ofhearing procedures), Article 67(1)(immediate injunction) andArticle 73[(prosecution)]
[accusation] oftheLawConcerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly andMaintenance ofFairTrade
shallnotbeapplied tothefaircompetition codethathasbeenauthorized under Section (1),andto
suchactsof[businesses][entrepreneurs]oratradeassociationashavebeendoneinaccordancetherewith.
(6) Anyperson whocomplains about ameasure taken bytheFairTrade Commission under
theprovisions of[Section] [Clause] (1)or(3)mayfileanobjection withtheFairTrade Commission
[in][within] thirty daysfromthedayonwhich thenotification [hasbeenmade] under theprovisions
of[Subsection] [clause] (4)[wasissued] [wasissued] .InthiscasetheFairTrade Commission shall
dismiss thesaidobjection, orshallcancel oralterthesaidmeasure [through] [byadecision aftertaking]
hearing procedures.
Note:
Clause (1)and(4)"Rules oftheFairTrade Commission" =theRules Concerning Application, etc.forAuthorization ofFairCompetition
Code under Provisions ofSection 10oftheActAgainst Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representations Partially amended byLaw
No.89of1993.
Article 11 (Exemption from theAdministrative Complaint Review Law)
(1) With respect toameasure taken bytheFairTrade Commission inaccordance with
theprovisions ofthisLaw, anappeal under theAdministrative Complaint Review Law(Law No.160
of1962) shallnotbemade.WT/DS44/R
Page491
(2) A[lawsuitrelating toa]request under theprovision ofArticle 8(1)([adjudgment]
[hearing] procedures) oramatter thataperson maycomplain about [inaccordance withSection] [under
clause] 6ofthepreceding Article [only] maybebrought [ifnot][ifnot]against thedecision.
Article 12 (Penalties)
(1) Anyperson whofailed tosubmit areport orsubmitted afalsereport, orrefused,
obstructed orevaded inspection, orfailed toanswer ormade falseanswers tothequestions, asprovided
inArticle 9-4(1)(collection ofreports, andon-site inspection, etc.),shallbefined notmore than
thirty thousand yen.
(2) [When] Arepresentative ofa[corporation orarepresentative ofeither acorporation
oranindividual, employee orother operator, whoviolates] [juridical person, oranagent oranyother
person intheservice ofsuchjuridical person orofanindividual hasviolated] theprovision ofthe
preceding [section] [clause] ,withrespect tothebusiness ofthesaid[corporation] [juridical person]
orsaidindividual, [thesaidjuridical person orsaidindividual] shallbefined asprovided forinthe
preceding [section] [clause] inaddition tothepunishment oftheoffender.
Legislative history: Addition ofthissection (Law No.44of1972)WT/DS44/R
Page492
2. APPENDIX TOTRANSLATION ISSUE 19:
Editorial: FairCompetition Codes, Sweet Fantasies andIllusions ought tobetaboo, Shashin
Kogyo Junpo, 1August 1987, (Japan Ex.D-71; USEx.87-8)
United States: original version [textinbrackets]:
Japan: corrected version initalics
"...Thesecond illusion isonewhich hasarisen from theexpectation thatphotosensitized materials
anddevelopment printing are[naturally] included withcameras under thecodes. Judging fromthe
simple factthat[even though] thename ofthecodes itself- ”FairCompetition Code Regarding
Representations inthecamera category [andRelated Products] Retailers ’Industry ”-clearly refers
tothe“camera category [andrelated products] retailers, itshould beself-evident whether ornot[alone,
there seem tobetheimplication that]photosensitized materials anddevelopment printing can[might]
beincluded. Saying that“[Thisisbecause] camera shops always [must] handle photosensitized materials
anddevelopment printing aswell”isjust[goes theargument, andthisleadstosome] quibbling among
retailers. Legally, suchaninterpretation should notbeallowed. “Inspiteofthat,Mr.EijiHashimoto,
ViceChairman oftheBoard, hasstirred upexpectation bysaying thatthiscodenaturally includes
photosensitized materials anddevelopment printing ”Suchcriticism [Thetragedy ofthisstatement
itself] wasevenheard about fromthestanding board members ofZenren, butthis[thatfact]israther
strange. After all,thecodes havealready beeninworking draftfrom fortwoyears ormore. They
haveprepared the“original bill”including thename, from anearly stage andhadcarried outan
investigation concerning thedetails. ItisafactthatViceChairman [Deputy Director] Hashimoto
repeated statements suggesting that[thisquery,] “[Shouldn ’t]bothphotosensitized materials and
development printing are[naturally be]included.[ ?]”tothegeneral membership. However, wouldn ’t
it[ultimately] bethejoboftheexecutives -namely, thestanding board ofZenren -tostrictly check
intheprocess ofthepreparation ofthecodes whether ornotthese twoareas are[canbe]included
asexpected ?Organizationally, Zenren andtheFairTrade Promotion Council (FTPC), previously
known asSuishinkyo [Kotorikyo] butnowknown asKotorikyo [Suishinkyo]), which hasbeenworking
ontheformulation ofthecodes but[the]jobofcodeformulation [regulation], however, hasinvolved
[involves]otherZenrenexecutiveinadditiontoViceChairman[DeputyDirector]Hashimoto.Moreover,
evenwithZenren Chairman [Director] Kimura ’sproud claims, “These arecodes which weretailers
created, ”itwould indeed bestrange ifZenren executives (standing board), which haveneglected even
tocheck whether ornotphotosensitized materials anddevelopment printing areincluded, weretoblame
ViceChairman [relyonlyupon Deputy Director] Hashimoto alone.
B. RESPONSES BYTHE TRANSLATION EXPERTS
ThePanel, inconsultation withtheparties, hasappointed astranslation experts:
- Professor Michael Young (Centre forJapanese Legal Studies, Columbia University
School ofLaw, NewYork, USA); and
- Professor Zentaro Kitagawa (Kyoto Comparative LawCentre, Kyoto, Japan).
The"Procedures fortheResolution ofPossible Translation Issues" arediscussed inPartIon
"Procedural History" (seepara. 1.9supra ).
Theresponses bythetwoexperts tothetranslation issues raised bytheparties arecontained
inthefollowing table(pages 493-526 infra).WT/DS44/R
Page493Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
1The word taisaku can be variously translated as “measure, ”“countermeasure, ”“counterplan, ”
“countermove, ”etc., depending onthecontext.Forthereasons explained below "taisaku" 'should betranslated
as"measure."
TheJapanese government isquite correct inpointing outthat when thetaisaku isdesigned tofurther some
affirmative goal, such astheacceleration oftheprovision ofelectrical power, “measure ”isprobably themost
appropriate translation. Thesame istrue when referring tosomething like“energy conservation measures. ”"Taisaku" can mean "countermeasure," however, because
"taisaku" hasnodirect English language equivalent, translation
requires consideration ofthe circumstances. Inlight ofthe
context here, itisawkward totranslate "taisaku" as
"countermeasure" because the subject "policy" consists of
promoting positive goals of rationalization and market
development.
Atthesame time, when thetaisaku istaken inresponse tosomething that might either beundesirable in
and ofitself ormight create undesirable effects, then thetranslation “countermeasure ”isprobably most
appropriate. Forexample, theJapanese Federation ofBar Associations setupacommittee tostudy and
recommend responses tothedesire offoreign attorneys topractice inJapan. This committee, aTaisakui ’inkai,
was often translated asa“Countermeasures Committee. ”Taisaku taken inthecontext oftheappreciation of
theyenorinflation might also well betranslated as“countermeasures. ”Indifferent contexts one may appropriately translate "taisaku"
as"countermeasure." Forexample, Japanese speakers may use
"taisaku" inexpressions such asearthquake countermeasures
(jishin taisaku) orpollution countermeasures (kougai taisaku). In
thelatter cases, "taisaku" connotes apolicy "against" something
undesirable, ortobecontained, such asthe illeffects of
earthquakes andpollution.
Ofcourse, tosome extent, theappropriate translation may depend onthephraseology. Forexample, ifone
isreferring to“anti-inflationary ”taisaku ,then theappropriate translation isprobably “measures, ”asin“anti-
inflationary measures. ”If,onthe other hand, one isreferring to“inflationary ”taisaku ,then the most
appropriate translation is“inflationary countermeasure. ”
Inshort, thecritical question iswhether thetaisaku isdesigned, ontheonehand, toadvance some cause
orinterest that isconsidered generally desirable or,ontheother, tocounter some unhappy societal oreconomic
developments. Inthe former case, “measures ”isprobably the best translation. Inthe latter case,
“countermeasures ”isaperfectly appropriate translation.
Thus, intheinstant case, thecritical question iswhether the“liberalization ”taisaku were taken toadvance
thecause ofliberalization orwhether thetaisaku were taken either toslow down orreverse thetendencies
towards liberalization ortocounter thedislocations that might beoccasioned byliberalization. Intheformer
case, “measures ”istheappropriate term; inthelatter case, countermeasures might more accurate capture the
nuances oftheterm.
Without examining every document submitted byboth parties, itisimpossible todetermine definitively
whether “measures ”or“countermeasures ”isthemost accurate translation inthis particular case. More
important than theprecise word, however, isthespecific content ofthese measures. That determines whether
they aremeasures toadvance theliberalization andopening ofamarket ormeasures toslow down liberalization
orcounter thedislocations that liberalization might occasion.WT/DS44/R
Page494Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
2 Ibelieve theGOJ hasmischaracterized thisparticular issue asatranslation problem, when, upon myreading
ofboth theUSG and GOJ submissions, that does notappear tobetheproblem atall. Rather, itseems the
parties simply characterize thecontent oftheMITI’sFirst Interim Report differently. Or,putslightly differently,
theParties appear todraw quite different conclusions from thereport. The GOJ points tonospecific instance
inPara. 125, fn88,where theUSG mistranslated something. Rather, theGOJ appears todisagree with the
conclusions theUSG draws from thereport. Allow metobesomewhat more specific.Forthereasons stated below, Iamoftheopinion that theU.S.
statement (i.e., "tolimit competition indistribution inorder to
create Stability and high prices....... )does not accurately
describe theposition ofMITI asstated inthecited Japanese
language document.
Based onitsreading oftheReport, theUSG characterizes thereport asarticulating thecentral principle
that willlater underlie MITI’sdistribution policy, namely, “theneed tolimit competition indistribution inorder to
create stability andhigh prices forthebenefit ofdomestic manufactures. ”Idonotread theUSG Submission
assuggesting that itsprecise articulation ofthis“central principle ”isadirect quotation from theFirst Interim
Report orthat itisanywhere quoting directly from thereport forthat precise conclusion. Rather, thisappears
tobetheconclusion theUSG draws from itsexamination ofthereport. Itsupports that reading inthat same
paragraph (p.21,Para. 78), byoffering specific points from theFirst Interim Report ofMITI that theUSG
believes supports thebasic position offered inthefirst sentence oftheparagraph. The USG might have even
embellished thispoint more byhighlighting theextent towhich theauthors oftheReport seem concerned about
goods being sold “extremely cheaply ”andthe“wide variety ofprices [offered] within thesame consumer area”
and the failure ofallthat tobring about rationalization (orperhaps even elicit rationalization efforts by
companies --theReport isslightly ambiguous onthis point). But, itdoes notappear that theUSG isquoting
directly from theReport inthestatement that theGOJ hashighlighted.The document does notmention any policy "tocreate stability
andhigh prices forthebenefit ofdomestic manufacturers." The
term "limit competition" also does notappear inthedocument.
Instead, inthe document MITI discusses conditions of
"appropriate competition" and focuses generally upon
rationalization" issues.
Although MITI indicates that vertical integration canresult inthe
establishment ofdistribution systems, MITI also recognized that
vertical integration was not necessarily the best way to
rationalize every market,
TheGOJ, ontheother hand, asserts that thereport draws noconnection between competitive conditions in
thedistribution and manufacturing sector, butrather that itnotes only that the“establishment ofappropriate
competition conditions would stimulate the modernization ofdistribution mechanisms ”and that “vertical
integration didnotnecessarily mean that distribution systems would berationalized. ”Ofcourse, theGOJ does
notindicate what theMinistry believes tobe“appropriate ”competitive conditions. But, again, itappears that
theGOJ isasserting what itbelieves iscontained inthereport, notdisagreeing about aprecise translation, at
least asIread it.
3 The USG hastranslated netto as“network, ”while theGOJ insists that theproper translation is“netprices. ”
Inthis instance, theGOJ iscorrect. Inthis particular context, theword netto most correctly refers to“net
prices, ”not“network. ”The word nettowaaku issometimes used torefer tonetwork, butnotinthisarticle.
This article uses other words torefer tothe distribution structure (ryutsu kozo)ordistribution network
(ryutsumo ).Netto refers tonetprices ornetprofits."Netto" isinJapanese business practices anabbreviation ofthe
English word "net prices."
Regarding thesecond point, asatechnical matter, Ibelieve theGOJ iscorrect inthat thephrase quoted in
theUSG Submission --“”alimit totheexpansion ofsales channels seems tobeappearing ”(USG Submission, p.
58)--refers specifically tothedistribution industry forcameras. The context ofthespecific discussion of
“expansion ”inthat paragraph isthat oftheincrease indistribution outlets bycamera manufacturers which are
opening their own stores. The very next sentence then notes that a“limit totheexpansion ofsales channels
seems tobeappearing, ”thus technically referring tothose sales channels that areopened bythemanufacturers
ofcamera equipment andthose sales channels that compete with such stores.WT/DS44/R
Page495Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
3
(contd)Itisnotentirely clear, however, that theauthor believes such sales channels areexclusively limited to
camera hardware orthat they effect only thepricing patterns ofcamera equipment. Intheremainder ofthe
paragraph, following thephrase inquestion, the author seems tofocus onboth cameras and film, thus
suggesting that such new outlets (and theconcomitant limitation ontheincrease insuch new outlets) also
effect thedistribution structure forsales forfilm and other camera related products. Indeed, ifanything, the
remainder oftheparagraph focuses more onfilm than oncameras.
Thus, insum, astrictly technical linguistic reading ofthedisputed sentence isthat itrefers to“sales
channels ”forcameras. Atthesame time, theauthor appears toassert that such sales channels also effect the
pattern ofdistribution and price structure forsales offilm and related products. Thus, hemay intend to
include film, etc., incomment about how limitations intheincrease insales channels areappearing.
4 The GOJ iscertainly correct that theterm keiretsuka can have avariety ofmeanings, depending on
context. Itismost commonly used intwo relatively distinct contexts. First andperhaps best known arethe
groups ofloosely affiliated companies that, forthemost part, produce distinct products, but, nevertheless, are
connected byrelatively small amounts ofcross-ownership andacommon, usually pre-war, history. The myriad
companies that bear theMitsui, Mitsubishi orSumitomo name areexamples ofthis form ofkeiretsu .These
keiretsu areoften thesuccessors tothepre-war conglomerates orzaibatsu that were broken upafter World
War II.However, unlike thepre-war zaibatsu orconglomerates, these companies arenotheld together bya
common holding company which holds large shares ofstock inallofthem. Rather, they arevery loosely
affiliated with small amounts ofcross-ownership andfrequent structured arrangements whereby thePresidents
andother officers ofthecompanies gather tonetwork, exchange information andotherwise discuss matters of
common interest.Items 4-6
Forthefollowing reasons, theJapanese submissions translation
of"keiretsuka" as"vertical integration" more accurately and
objectively conveys themeaning of"keiretsuka" inthiscontext.
Thesecond common usage ofkeiretsu isinreference toagroup ofcompanies that arelargely inonechain
ofproduction, including both up-stream and down-stream producers. Often included inthekeiretsu ofauto
manufactures, forexample, areup-stream parts producers anddown-stream distributors, inaddition, ofcourse,
totheauto manufacturers themselves.Items 4-6(contd)
"Keiretsu" relationships might include horizontal and vertical
relationships. "Keiretsuka" means the establishment ofsuch
inter-firm orintra-firm relationships. Inthis document
"keiretsuka" does notrefer generally toestablishment ofsuch
relations, but specifically tothe establishment ofvertical
relationships orintegration.
Therefore "vertical integration" istechnically the better
translation. Also, vertical integration ismore easily
understandable inanEnglish language document. Outside of
Japan theword "keiretsu" may bemisunderstood asitisoften
used incontexts wherein ithas negative implications. Inthe
Japanese language document atissue, however, "keiretsu"
simply objectively describes aspecific structure ororganization
offirm relationships inthe Japanese economy, i.e. vertical
integration.WT/DS44/R
Page496Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
4
(contd)Innormal course, onemight beinclined toconsider this second type ofkeiretsu asmerely aform of“vertical
integration ”and, tosome extent, itiscertainly that. However, thecompanies may berelated inastock
ownership way intighter orlooser ways. Insome cases, both theup-stream anddown-stream companies are
largely orexclusively owned bythemanufacturer. Inother cases, only thedown-stream or,onrarer occasions,
only theup-stream arewholly orlargely owned subsidiaries and theother half oftheproduction stream are
bound more bycontract and expectation than stock ownership. Inthese cases, the non-wholly owned
subsidiary may still bebound tothemain company bysome degree ofstock ownership, though generally far
less than necessary toexercise control. Instillother cases, none ofthecompanies may bewholly (orlargely)
owned subsidiaries oftheother. Rather, allarebound more bycontract andmutual cooperative expectations,
along perhaps with asmall amount ofcross-ownership ofstock, than bycomplete parent-subsidiary relationship.Iwould also liketonote that Item 159 (atp.61 ofThe First
Submission ofthe Government ofJapan) could bebetter
translated as:"Vertical integration ofdistribution channels does
notalways mean, from theperspective ofthenational economy,
that vertical integration isthebest way torationalize each of
thedistribution structures."
Itappears that thevarious reports refer tothis second kind ofkeiretsu .Thus, toanextent, theGOJ is
correct, inthat thereports refer toarationalization ofthedistribution system that takes theform ofcreating
more exclusive vertical relationships between manufacturers anddistributors (atthewholesale orretail levels or,
perhaps, atboth). Ontheother hand, theUSG isalso correct toanextent because referring tothismerely as
“vertical integration ”may suggest perhaps adegree ofparent-subsidiary relationship interms ofownership and
control that isnotnecessarily inherent intheterm keiretsu .
Accordingly, Ithink either term entirely appropriate. The term “vertical integration ”isacceptable, aslong
asthePanel understands that theterm “vertical integration, ”when used torefer tokeiretsu ,should notbe
understood tomean precisely thekind ofvertical integration ofwhich wethink when considering vertical
integration inmost U.S. orWestern European economic situations. That is,inthiscontext, “vertical integration ”
does not necessarily mean wholly-owned subsidiaries oreven asituation inwhich one party exercises
substantial control over theother through theexercise ofcorporate rights inherent intheownership ofcertain
percentage oftheother corporation ’sstock. Itmay mean that, ofcourse, but, asdescribed above, itmay also
mean amuch more flexible, loose relationship that may nevertheless bequite exclusive andfunction fully asan
unalterable sole distribution relationship.
Alternatively, “keiretsu-nizing ”or“keiretsunization ”isalso entirely appropriate, aslong asthe Panel
understands therange offorms that such distribution cooperation might take, including everything from wholly-
owned parent-subsidiary relationships toloose affiliations, based perhaps onrelatively small amounts ofcross-
ownership (though not necessarily), that generate exclusive dealing relationships that are very stable and
relatively unalterable.
5 Having reviewed these materials inboth English andJapanese, Irefer thePanel tomydiscussion regarding Item
No.4.Ithink that same analysis applies tothisItem.
6 Having reviewed these materials inboth English andJapanese, Irefer thePanel tomydiscussion regarding
Item No.4.Ithink that same analysis applies tothisItem.WT/DS44/R
Page497Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
7 Before Ianalyze this issue, Iwould liketonote that theFirst Submission oftheGovernment ofJapan
seems tocite thewrong article fortherelevant translation problem atissue. Footnote 145 states, “The U.S.
translates aNovember 1,1967, Nihon Shashin Kogyo Tsushin article as.... ”(emphasis added.) However, the
relevant section isnotintheNovember 1,1967 article cited as“Ex.67-14", butrather seems tobeinthe
December, 1967 (pp. 5-8) article from Zenren Tsuho ,titled “Let’sAllHave Cameras -Film, Printing Paper
Promotion ofTrading Normalization Triggered byaMonochrome Photosensitive Materials Price Increase ”(inthe
“Provisional ”English translation).1)
Inmyopinion, thebetter translation is:"...want torationalize
distribution channels alltheway totheretail level, .........".
Inaddition, the GOJ has not cited the precise footnote ofthe USG Submission inwhich the USG
supposedly cites either ofthearticles inquestion. Furthermore, theGOJ does notcitetoanyparticular section
ofthearticle(s) which may negate theUSG’sclaim duetoany translation errors. Nordoes thisclaim bythe
GOJ seem toraise atranslation issue, atleast inthe conventional sense. Accordingly, Ihave notreviewed
theGOJ’sclaim that thearticle(s) inquestion donotsupport theUSG claim.2)
Exhibit 67-14 does not support the U.S. allegation that the
Government ofJapan designed distribution policies toencourage
asingle-brand distribution system. Ifind nomention of
government policy inthisdocument. Exhibit 67-14 consists ofa
neutral statement from theperspective ofone having business
interests inthewholesaler industry. The author hasapparently
assumed that manufacturers preferred asingle brand distribution
system, oradistribution system with afew large distributors.
Theauthor states that distributors need tofocus ontheissue of
how tosuccessfully dobusiness insuch anenvironment rather
than ontheissue ofwhether such adistribution system isgood
ornot.
Turning tothetranslation issue, themain question iswhat FujiandKonika want; inother words, whether
FujiandKonika want “distribution ”alltheway totheretail level, astheUSG suggests, orwhether they want
“torationalize transactions, ”astheGOJ urges. The original Japanese section does notmake apparent the
object oftheverb, seibi,sothere isaneed tolook atthecontext ofthesentence inorder tounderstand which
meaning isimplied.
Before addressing themain question ofwhat the“object ”oftheclause is,there isneed tolook attheverb
oftheclause. The USG translation isphrased sothat “want ”istheverb oftherelevant clause, whereas, the
GOJ translation uses theverb, “want torationalize. ”Theverb intheoriginal Japanese text isseibi shite ikitai ,
which can betranslated as,“want to‘adjust ’or‘restructure. ’”Since theUSG and theGOJ donotseem to
argue about thetranslation ofhanbai ru-to noseibi mo,thesubtitle ofthis section, as“restructuring ofsales
channels aswell”(emphasis added), itmay bemore consistent tousethetranslation, “restructure ”here, too.
So,what isitthat FujiandKonika want torestructure? Ibelieve that theauthor ofthearticle addresses
thisquestion inthesubtitle ofthesection: “Restructuring ofSales Channels, aswell, ”or“Also Restructuring
ofSales Channels. ”Ithink thisstrongly suggests that theobject ofrestructuring is“sales channels, ”which is
relatively close totheUSG translation of“distribution. ”WT/DS44/R
Page498Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
7
(contd)Inaddition, asaside issue, there isaquestion astoFujiandKonika should beputinbrackets ornot. In
this case, since thesubject oftheclause isnotdirectly stated, butcannevertheless beinferred from thefirst
part ofthesentence, FujiandKonika should beinbrackets, astheUSG suggests. Thus, themost appropriate
translation would beasfollows:
“[Fuji andKonika] want torestructure [sales channels] alltheway totheretail level... ”
8 Istart bynoting that theGOJ hasslightly mischaracterized thenature ofthis issue byimplying that the
phrase they citefrom theUSG Submission is,initsentirety, a“translation ofajournal article.... ”Infact, the
USG Submission directly cites from thetranslation only thesecond half ofthat sentence, “theinflux offoreign
capital may bechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law. ”Thefirst halfofthesentence intheUSG
brief, starting with “Forinstance, ”isnotinquotation marks andthus does notindicate that theUSG isdirectly
quoting from thearticle. Moreover, thepart ofthesentence notinquotation marks differs slightly from the
provisional translation ofthearticle provided bytheUSG, further supporting theview that theabsence of
quotation marks around thefirst half ofthesentence isnotaccidental, butrather that theUSG intended to
quote only thesecond half ofthesentence directly from theprovisional translation. Accordingly, Iwillcompare
notwhat theGOJ mistakenly characterizes as“theU.S. translation ”,butrather theProvisional translation
provided (presumably bytheUSG) andtheGOJ translation contained inFootnote 152 onPage 67oftheGOJ
Submission. Idoalso note, bytheway, that even regarding that part oftheUSG sentence that iscontained
within thequotation marks isnotdrawn directly from theProvisional translation, butrather differs slightly. I
willnote when such differences occur andtheir relevance.Iwould translate thesubject text asfollows: "Assuming that the
trade usage ofrebates, asone example, has been established
within theindustry, excessive practices byforeign capital canbe
checked byoperation oftheAntimonopoly Law."
The Provisional translation and theGOJ differ only very slightly with respect tothelatter half ofthe
sentence that may beread “~foreign capital may bechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law. ”The
Provisional translation states that “~foreign capital could bychecked ”,while theGOJ translates that phrase as
“~foreign capital may bechecked ”.Inlight oftheoriginal Japanese, Ithink “could ”isthepreferable translation.
However, since theUSG does usetheword “may”inthetext ofitssubmission asanexact translation, it
appears that both theUSG andtheGOJ agree that “may”isthemost appropriate translation. Accordingly, I
willuse“may”forpurposes ofthisanalysis.
The USG andtheGOJ dodisagree onthetranslation ofthephrase immediately preceding theabove, the
Japanese original ofwhich reads: gaishi noyukisugi .Or,more precisely, theparties seem todisagree whether
theobject ofyukisugi ,which istranslated aseither “influx ”or“excess, ”ismerely gaishi (“foreign capital ”),as
theUSG suggests, orsomething broader, such as“theuseofrebates, ”astheGOJ suggests. (The Provisional
translation translates yukisugi as“excess, ”while theUSG Submission uses theword “influx. ”Aswill be
indicated shortly inthetext, theGOJ takes asomewhat different approach andthus does notdirectly dispute
theuseofeither ofthese words. “Excess ”seems abetter translation tome,butsince theUSG uses “influx ”
initsformal Submission andtheGOJ does notoffer adifferent view, Iwillusetheword “influx, ”rather than
“excess. ”)WT/DS44/R
Page499Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
8
(contd)Itisvery difficult toresolve this issue because theoriginal Japanese text isvery vague and ambiguous.
With respect toearlier translation issues, theGOJ hasconstantly urged thePanel tonotfillinmissing phrases,
words orideas from thesurrounding text, butrather totranslate strictly asamatter ofword substitution, to
theextent possible. The contention seems tobebased ontheidea that when theUSG fills inthemissing
phrase orword bydrawing inferences from thesurrounding text, theinference isinvariably favourable tothe
U.S. case andundermines theGOJ’scontentions. Taking that particular tack, theUSG translation isprobably
themore accurate, though itrequires some refinement. If,ontheother hand, weconsider thesurrounding
sentences, itbecomes somewhat more difficult tobesure what theauthor hadinmind. Letmeexamine this
sentence from each ofthose perspectives.
Letmestart with asomewhat strict translation, based largely onword substitution. The first part ofthe
sentence, ascontained intheProvisional translation, reads: “Forinstance, rebates were planned sothat ifthey
were tobecome common practice intheindustry.... ”Ibelieve abetter translation would be:“Even ifwetake
uprebates [forexample], ifthey become common practice intheindustry.... ”The particular Japanese phrase
inquestion is“~toriagete mite mo”anddoes notgenerally suggest, particularly inthiscontext, that such rebates
“were ”adopted oreven “were planned, ”butrather suggests that wewillnow take thisissue upandexamine it
forpurposes ofillustrating some point tothereader. Inother words, theauthor appears tobeexamining, asan
illustrative example, what usemight bemade oftherelevant law(orguidelines, asIwilldiscuss shortly) inthe
event rebates become common industry practice.
Regarding insertion ofthephrase “ifthey become common practice intheindustry, ”theGOJ assertion in
Footnote 152 might initially beread asaclaim that thisphrase isnotfound intheJapanese original. However,
thephrase isclearly found intheJapanese original andiscorrectly translated much astheUSG translates itin
theProvision translation.
Ontheother hand, theGOJ might beasserting inFootnote 152 that theUSG Submission claims that the
article stands fortheproposition that “rebates were adopted ”and then goes ontogive thereason forsuch
adoption, namely, “sothat once they become common practice intheindustry, ‘theinflux offoreign capital may
bechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law. ’”Inthis regard, theGOJ may have amore legitimate
complaint. The sentence indispute clearly references “common practice intheindustry, ”butdoes soina
conditional way, indicating that certain consequences would follow ifrebates became acommon industry
practice. Intheoriginal Japanese, thesentence inquestion does notindicate whether rebates had orwould
become acommon practice, butrather only examined thepossibilities ifthey became acommon industry
practice.WT/DS44/R
Page500Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
8
(contd)Turning now tothemost controversial part ofthesentence, whether the“influx offoreign capital ”may be
checked or“theabnormal useofrebates byforeign capital ”may bechecked. Taking theapproach generally
urged bytheGOJ inother translation issues, astrict reading oftheoriginal Japanese suggests only that the
“influx offoreign capital ”may bechecked. There isnothing else inthesentence like“theabnormal useof
rebates. ”The useofrebates ismentioned only inthecontext described above. Accordingly, taking thisview,
thebest translation would be:“Even ifwetake uprebates [forexample], ifthey become common practice in
theindustry, theinflux offoreign capital may bechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law. ”(Asa
minor matter, notdirectly addressed ineither theUSG orGOJ claims, Iwould liketomention that theoriginal
English translation oftheAugust 1971 article ofZenren Tsuho might beslightly misleading regarding thevery
last phrase ofthesentence inquestion, which reads: “...the Antimonopoly Law, ameasure that has been
devised and putinplace .”Theoriginal Japanese text reads, toiu koto kara sakutei sareta mono nano dearu.
The USG translation might beread tosuggest that itistheAntimonopoly Law which hasbeen devised andput
inplace. However, itseems apparent from thesentence immediately preceding that itistheguidelines that
have been devised andputinplace, nottheAntimonopoly Law.)
Atthesame time, using aslightly broader, contextual approach totranslation, theresult might bedifferent.
Inthecontext ofthis sentence andtheparagraph within which itsits, itisnotentirely clear that theauthor
meant this phrase --“influx offoreign capital ”--toberead sonarrowly. Given that thecontext ofthe
sentence istheuseofrebates and how wide spread they might become, itwould notbeunacceptable to
consider that thething that might bechecked bytheAntimonopoly Law istheexcessive useofrebates. The
principal question then becomes what gaishi means inthiscontext. Normally, gaishi means foreign capital, but
itcanoccasionally beashort-hand term forforeign investors. Thus, this sentence could beread asfollows:
“Even ifwetake uprebates [forexample], ifthey become common practice intheindustry, foreign investors
going toofar[intheuseofrebates] may bechecked bytheapplication oftheAntimonopoly Law. ”Given that
thearticle istalking mainly about ways toprevent foreigners from coming into theJapanese market and
disrupting thesettled distribution system byintroducing competition within theindustry, itisentirely possible to
consider that what istobechecked isnot, technically speaking, theactual influx offoreign capital, butrather
theextensive useofrebates bytheforeign investors. Iaminclined tothink this translation captures the
meaning oftheJapanese.
Imake two additional observations, however. First, Ithink thesentence isvery ambiguous and, while I
lean tothelatter interpretation, itisbynomeans certain. Second, theGOJ usetheword “abnormal ”to
describe foreign capital ’suseofrebates. That isnotaparticular accurate orgood translation andIhave not
used itinthetranslation, butrather have used “going toofar.”
9 The dispute here seems tofocus onthedifference ininterpretation oftheobject ofprogression: whether
FujiFilm’sfinancial soundness has progressed orwhether thesoundness oftransactions progressed. Inthis
case, thelatter interpretation (that oftheGOJ) iscorrect.Neither (a)nor(b)isentirely correct. The original text states
that "soundness 'hasindeed progressed,". The term "financial"
does notappear inthetext andthetext does notfurther explain
themeaning of"soundness."WT/DS44/R
Page501Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
9
(contd)The sentence atissue emphasizes theword kenzenka ,which means “soundness ”or“health, ”byputting it
inquotation marks. Use ofthese quotation marks suggests that theauthor isusing kenzenka inthesame
context asbefore. Earlier inthearticle, inthefirst sentence ofthethird paragraph, theauthor first mentions
kenzenka bysaying, “...Fuji Firumu gakaishu oyobi soreni tomonau shukka kenzenka hoko nihowo
fumidashita... .”(USG translation: “...Fuji Film started totrytoimprove itsreceivables andrelated shipments ”).
Here, theobject ofkenzenka isthereceivables andrelated shipments. Theauthor then goes ontoexplain how
FujiFilm went about improving thesoundness ofsuch transactions intheparagraphs, focusing intheparagraph
atissue ontheperiod ofpayment forreceivables. Immediately after describing theshortened time frame for
payment ofreceivables, the author concludes that because ofthese changes the “soundness ”(which is
zenkenka inbrackets) hasindeed progressed. Inthis context, theauthor isalmost certainly referring tothe
soundness ofthereceivables and related shipments. The GOJ hascombined theimprovements ofreceivables
andrelated shipments andcalled it“transactions. ”
The GOJ also contends that paragraph 119 oftheUSG Submission, inwhich theUSG asserts that “shortly
after thenew transaction terms went into effect, Misuzu ’sfinancial situation deteriorated, ”finds nosupport in
theZenren Tsuho article cited infootnote 100, which istheJune 1968 Zenren Tsuho article entitled
Relationship Between Major Photo Materials Wholesalers and Manufactures From theStandpoint ofIndustry ’s
Photo Materials [USG translation}. This article does discuss how businesses have reacted toFuji Film’s
tightening ofcredit and also how Fuji Film’sassistance has helped some businesses ’,including apparently,
Misuzu ’s,financial situation toimprove. Atthesame time, itdoes notstate inanyexplicit way theexistence
ofadirect causal relationship between thenew transaction terms and Misuzu ’sfinancial deterioration. One
might infer that atleast some ofthese companies ’financial problems arerelated toFuji’schanging transactional
policies from certain assertions, such astheneed forthetokuyakuten toundertake more stringent collection
procedures because ofthechange inFuji’spolicies. Inaddition, theauthor mentions other changes that the
tokuyakuten must take inresponse tothegeneral tightening ofcredit, perhaps implying that these changes are
necessary toavoid deterioration intheir financial situation ortoimprove adeteriorating situation, buttheauthor
nowhere explicitly states anycasual connection.WT/DS44/R
Page502Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
9
(contd)Atthesame time, such acasual connection isimplied much more strongly intheZenren Tsuho article
cited inFn98orParagraph 115 oftheUSG Submission (FujiFilm’sResult ofStricter Policy onReceivables ,
Zenren Tsuho ,march 1968, Ex.68-2). This particular article does notexplicitly state$ that Misuzu ’sfinancial
situation deteriorated shortly after thenew transaction terms went into effect, buttheauthor certainly seems
toimply that thenew transaction terms adversely effected some ofthetokuyakuten andother business. For
example, inthesecond fullparagraph onp.3ofthisarticle (USG translation), theauthor notes: "Asmentioned
intheprevious section, inApril 1966 FujiFilm made itspayment terms forphotosensitive materials tokuyakuten
more strict inaneffort tonormalize their business relationships. These moves were stepped upinApril oflast
year." Theparagraph goes ontonote steps FujiFilm took tohelp businesses that “could nothandle thetighter
payment deadlines. ”Then, thevery next paragraph starts out: “Some tokuyakuten naturally could notkeep up
with thepace ofsuch apayment cycle. Businesses that were faced with mounting troubles, just asChuo
Photo was (even ifthis was notwhat Fujiintended), thus found themselves indire straits. ”Thus, theauthor
clearly describes acausal connection between thetightening ofpayment terms and adeterioration inthe
financial condition ofsome ofthebusinesses. Hedoes notmention Misuzu specifically inthat paragraph, but
that Misuzu might well beincluded inthat group canbeinferred bystatements theauthor makes earlier inthe
article. Specifically, inthelast paragraph ofp.2ofthearticle (USG translation), theauthor states that Fuji
andKonica are“burdened with some ofthetokuyakuten that have asignificant number ofproblems. ”Hethen
goes ontonote that “[i]nFuji’scase, these used toinclude Omiya and Ueda, and now Shikijima and Misuzu,
who areconsidered tohave been able tocontinue their [business] activities until now duetospecial support
from themanufacturer.... ”Thus, itiscertainly possible toinfer that from theway inwhich theauthor has
described thegeneral cause ofproblems inthese businesses and theauthor ’sspecific useofMisuzu asan
example ofatroubled business that Misuzu ’sfinancial deterioration iscasually related toFuji Film’sstricter
policy onreceivables. Itisnotanabsolutely necessary inference, butitcertainly seems alegitimate one.
10 The article inquestion discusses thelowrate ofreturn offour distributors, noting that they have lowrates of
return despite unprecedented low interest rates and, resultingly, reductions ininterest payments. The article
does note that security money (or,inthecase ofMisuzu, long-term deposits) deposited with themanufacturer
earns slightly better interest rate than thecommercial rate. However, that istheonly direct reference toany
relationship with themanufacturer oranyeffect themanufacturer might have ontheprofitability oroperations
ofthedistributors.Thecorrect answer isJapan 'stranslation.
11 Strictly speaking, this does not appear tobeatranslation issue, atleast intheconventional sense.
However, letmeaddress ittotheextent possible, while also noting acertain limitation onmyability toaddress
it.This presents anissue ofstatutory interpretation rather than
translation.WT/DS44/R
Page503Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
11
(contd)[[On itsface, theLarge Scale Retail Store Law does notimpose arequirement ofanexamination ofanew
store “based upon mathematical formulas forcomparing theCommercial Population andlarge scale retail store
Occupation Rate ofone city with similar cities ”(USG Submission, p.68,Fn190). Rather, itrequires the
relevant authorities to: "...determine theprobability that retail business operations attheType-I orType-II
large-scale retail store inquestion willimpose considerable effects onthebusiness ofsmall and medium-sized
retailers inthevicinity...." (Article 7(1), Large Scale Retail Store Law, Ex.74-4 [USG translation]). Atthesame
time, inmaking this determination, therelevant authorities areinstructed totake “into consideration factors
within thevicinity oftheType-I orType-II large-scale retail store inquestion.... ”(Ibid.)Such factors include
“thescale and trends oftheprefectural population, prospect forthemodernization ofsmall and medium-sized
retailers, andtheproximity andcurrent business activities ofother large-scale retail stores. ”(Ibid.)
This would certainly permit therelevant authorities tocompare thesize ofthecurrent consuming public
(and trends inthegrowth rate ofthat public) with thesize ofthecurrent commercial distribution andthesize
ofcommercial distribution intheevent alarge-scale retail store ispermitted toopen. Moreover, since thislist
offactors that might beconsidered is,asalegal matter, illustrative and notexhaustive, there isnothing to
prevent theauthorities from comparing theconsuming population andtheoccupation rate ofthetarget citywith
that ofsimilar cities around Japan. Thus, itisclear that such acomparison asthat described bytheUSG in
Fn190 ispermitted under theLaw.
Even atthat, however, itimportant tonote that there isnothing ontheface oftheLaw that would seem
tomake such acomparison dispositive. Rather, thestatutorily mandated determination isthe“probability that
retail business operations atthe...large-scale retail store ...will impose considerable effects onthebusiness of
small and medium-sized retailers inthevicinity.... ”The comparison described bytheUSG inFn190 may be
relevant tothat determination andcertainly may beconsidered. But, atthesame time, other factors may also
beconsidered and, under thestatutory scheme, itappears that theDiet anticipated that other factors would be
considered. Thus, ataminimum, onecansaythat ontheface ofthestatute thecomparison described bythe
USG iscertainly permitted. Atthesame time, itdoes notappear that theDiet anticipated that that comparison
would betheonly relevant factor. Nor does itappear from theface ofthestatute that theDiet anticipated
that that comparison would bedispositive inandofitself. Still, thisdoes notmean that such acomparison is
notmade. Nordoes itmean that theuseofsuch acomparison, even ifnotdispositive andeven ifnotused
exclusively, would not, asamatter ofgeneral practice, have aneffect similar tothat described bytheUSG in
itsSubmission.
Itisimpossible toreach any definitive conclusion onthis last matter, however, based solely onan
examination ofthestatute. The USG hascited aparticular decision which itimplies supports itsconclusion,
namely, “Large Store Council Decision, ‘Investigatory Procedures fortheAdjustment ofthebusiness Activity of
Large Scale Retail Stores, ’November 14,1991, Ex.91-4”[cited inUSG Submission, p.68,Fn190]. That
may support theUSG conclusion, but, from theface ofthestatute alone, itisnotpossible toreach any
definitive conclusion onthispoint.WT/DS44/R
Page504Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
12 The first half oftheGOJ complaint about theUSG citation --thedegree towhich thesurveys cited
represent current conditions inJapan --ishardly atranslation issue. Both theUSG andtheGOJ seem toagree
that theMA survey isdated 1995. Moreover, theUSG also makes clear inboth text and footnote that the
JFTC citation isdated 1995. Accordingly, there does notappear tobeany disagreement about when the
surveys were conducted.Please note that the First U.S. Submission, atpara. 218
mistakenly cites theJFTC Council study report atpage 23. The
correct page ispage 25.
Itisnotappropriate formeasinterpretation expert tocomment
onwhether ornottheMAsurvey andJFTC study report arenot
representative ofcurrent conditions.
The second half oftheGOJ complaint about theUSG citation --that theUSG “erroneously translates the
JFTC adhocstudy group report, suggesting thereport confirmed that many excessive local regulations exist,
resulting inasignificant burden onstore openers ”--iscouched interms ofacomplaint about theaccuracy of
translation. However, atleast inthematerials provided tome, theGOJ does not point toany specific
dispositive translation errors.The U.S. First Submission erroneously cites the JFTC study
report. TheU.S. First Submission, paragraph 218, states:
Itappears that theparties disagree about what conclusions should bedrawn from thesurvey, rather than
about theaccuracy ofthetranslation ofthesurvey."It[The JFTC Council] concluded that:
[T]hese excessive regulations and non-transparent administrative
guidance onthe part oflocal government bodies and public
entities make those planning toopen stores continue tobear
unreasonable burdens inthe form ofdemands requiring very
intricate store opening plans tobesubmitted and other similar
demands. 269" [Hereinafter Irefer totheabove conclusion as
Intheoriginal Japanese language text theJFTC Council report
only refers toanexisting opinion that local regulations are
excessive. The JFTC does not conclude therein that such
regulations areexcessive.
1)"P", ascited bytheU.S. Submission, isnottheconclusion
oftheJFTC Council report. Thereport only quotes "P," without
identifying itssource. Onthesame page ofthereport, theJFTC
Council states "Despite such measures ofMITI'S,as"P"isin
part being pointed out, itispresumed that some such regulations
oftheir own still remain." (The words "their own" refer tothe
local government bodies, etc.)WT/DS44/R
Page505Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
12
(contd)2)Onthesame page 25,theJFTC Council report concludes:
"Some such local regulations oftheir own, which exceed the
framework oftheLarge Scale Retail Store Law bycontrolling the
opening oflarge retail stores, lead tointerrupt competition
among retail stores and tolimit customer 'sfreedom tochoose.
Therefore, such regulations should not beexercised from the
standpoint ofcompetition policy."
13 Strictly speaking, thisisnotaproblem oftranslation, butrather ofwhat conclusions aremost appropriately
drawn from thematerials inquestion. The USG hasstated inParagraph 202 ofitsFirst Submission that the
MITI circular “obliged the notifier to...obtain the consent oflocal retailers before submitting Article 3
Notification. ”TheGOJ, ontheother hand, hasargued that itcould “notfind anyphrase tothat effect inthe
Circular. ”However, theUSG statement isnotplaced within quotation marks and does notappear tobea
translation atall,butrather appears tobetheconclusion theUSG draws from theMITI Circular. The USG is
drawing itsconclusions andhasstated that conclusion inparagraph 202.Thebetter answer isJapan 'stranslation
Turning tothat conclusion, themost relevant section ofthetext states, inJapanese: todokede mae ni
shuttenyoteichi noshichoson nado eshuttenkeikaku nonaiyo nitsuite setsumei ookonauyo shido saretai .The
main verb, setsumei ,isusually translated as“inform ”or“explain. ”Thus, technically read, itappears that the
Circular actually guides thenotifier to“inform ”thelocal retailers or“explain ”tothelocal retailers before
submitting itsArticle 3Notification, rather than requiring them to“obtain theconsent ofthelocal retailers.... ”
Atthesame time, itisnotuncommon under Japanese administrative practice fortheparties involved to
understand that thegiving ofan“explanation ”also, tosome extent, may entail theobtaining ofconsent from
theparties towhom theexplanation isgiven or,ataminimum, that anyreasonable objection oftheparties to
whom theexplanation isgiven should beaccommodated totheextent possible. There isnothing intheCircular
that directly states this, however, andtheonly explicit guidance given intheCircular istogive anexplanation
ortoinform thelocal retailers.
The discussion surrounding Item No.14also analyzes this issue inmore depth. Please refer tothat as
well.
14 Asageneral matter, jimoto istranslated as“local”andsetsumei istranslated as“explanation ”.The USG
hascombined thetwo translations. Inacasual context, “local explanation ”would notbeinaccurate. However,
inthiscontext, jimotosetsumei isused asalegal term within thecircular oftheMinistry ofInternational Trade
andIndustry. Inother words, thecircular isnotusing theterm initsgeneral meaning, butinstead, hasinjected
aspecific meaning. Jimotosetsumei instructs theshuttenyoteisha (=store opener) toexplain thecontents ofits
store opening plan before themunicipal government, thechamber ofcommerce and industry, orindustry and
commerce association, small andmedium-sized retailers, andconsumers inthearea.The UStranslation isliteral, however, Japan 'stranslation isthe
more descriptive ofthetwo.WT/DS44/R
Page506Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
14
(contd)The USG translation as“local explanation ”seems toconnote anuance that isslightly different from the
context that itisused inhere. Local explanation usually refers toanexplanation made bythelocal people or
tothelocal people (probably byagovernment entity). Inthiscase, itisnotthelocal people that aregiving the
explanation oragovernment entity giving anexplanation tothelocal people, butrather theparties filing
notifications forType-I large-scale retail stores that aresubject tohold ajimotosetsumei .
The GOJ urges that “public briefing ”isthecorrect translation. The term “public briefing ”inEnglish
connotes theinference that thestate orother public entity isbriefing thepublic people. Itisimportant to
note here that thestore opener may notbeapublic entity. Furthermore, thebriefing isaddressed notonly to
theconsumers, butalso tothemunicipal government andtheother entities listed above.
Ibelieve that itisnotsoimportant todetermine whether theaccurate translation ofjimotosetsumei is
“local explanation ”or“public briefing ”,asitistounderstand how theword isused inthecircular. Aslong as
themeaning oftheterm isclear, either translation may befit.
15 The corrections made bytheJapanese Government totheU.S.
reference aswell astotheU.S. insertion of[ontheCouncils]
arecorrect.
16 Ireviewed themarked sections ofthetranslation ofthe"Law
Against Unjustifiable Premiums andMisleading Representations."
My opinions below are limited toaddress only those issues
indicated inthe marked document sent tome. Imake no
comment herein astothegeneral integrity ofthetranslation.
Throughout the translation atissue the word "hearing
procedures" isused. Forexample, seeArticles 6,7,8,10,11
etc. Tobeconsistent "adjudicative procedures" should beused
throughout thistranslation.
Article 2,
Clause 1
Premiums
Law1.Buppin:
The dictionary translation is“anarticle, ”“goods, ”or“commodities. ”Idonotthink there isamajor difference
inthiscase astowhether oneuses theword “article, ”astheGOJ suggests, or“goods, ”astranslated bythe
USG. Either would beacceptable aslong asoneterm isused throughout forthesake ofconsistency.
Inote, bytheway, that theword “commodity ”isused inthesame paragraph fortheJapanese word shohin ,so
itwould probably bebest nottousethat particular word asatranslation ofbuppin .Article 2:Clause 1:
The word "buhin" inJapanese should betranslated as"article"
rather than "goods."WT/DS44/R
Page507Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)2.Kuji noHoho:
The literal dictionary translation ofkuji is“lottery. ”The USG translates thephrase as“prize competition
method, ”whereas theGOJ would addthewords “lottery or”andthus have itread: “lottery orprize competition
method. ”Again, Idoubt there ismuch difference between thetwo phrases and Isee noproblem with
translating itas:“lottery orprize competition, ”which would accommodate theGOJ translation andinclude the
USG translation.Article 2:Clause 1:
Theword "prize competition" should betranslated as"lottery."
3.Jigyosha :
The USG translates this word as“business, ”incontrast totheGOJ’stranslation as“entrepreneur. ”To
understand fully thisword ’soriginal meaning, Ishall divide itinto two parts. Jigyo means “business, ”andsha
isgenerally translated asperson. When used inalegal context, shaisnotrestricted tonatural persons, but
may include any juridical person (i.e., corporations) aswell. Inthis particular case, however, Idonotthink
either “business ”or“entrepreneur ”fully captures themeaning because thelawappears tointend toinclude both
businesses andentrepreneurs. Inother words, if“business ”does notinclude theconcept oftheactual business
operations, aswell astheentrepreneurs who runthem, then itistoonarrow. Iftheword “entrepreneur ”does
notencompass thebusiness entity itself (and itsrelated operational activities), then that isnotadequately
expansive.
However, aslong asoneunderstands that theterm includes both “businesses ”and“entrepreneurs, ”then Ido
notthink itmatters which term onechooses.
This analysis applies anytime jigyosha isused inthislaw.Article 2:Clause 1:
Theword "jigyosha" inJapanese should betranslated throughout
as"entrepreneur."
Article 2:
Clause 24.Hyoji:
The term hyoji isused twice inArticle 2(2). When first used, hyoji istranslated as“representations ”andboth
theUSG andGOJ seem toagree onthistranslation.
The second translation ofhyoji isatissue here. The USG continues toused theterm “representations ”asits
translation ofhyoji,while theGOJ now insists ontheterm “description ”asthemost appropriate translation. I
donotthink there isany need todistinguish thefirst useofhyoji from thesecond. Therefore, Irecommend
using theterm “representation ”forconsistency reasons.Article 2:Clause 2:
Inthe original Japanese version, the word "hyoji" or
"representation" appears twice -asitdoes inthe literal
translation. The word "description" istoo narrow; however,
"indication" may perhaps besubstituted for"representation" in
thesecond linetoavoid using "representation" twice.
Article 3 5.Sogaku:
The dictionary translation includes: “total, ”“sum total, ”and “aggregate, ”asjust afew ofthis word ’s
translation. Idonotthink there isanysignificant difference inthiscase.Article 3:
The difference between "aggregate" and "sum total" does not
appear tobematerial. Theprior term isperhaps preferable asa
matter ofstyle.WT/DS44/R
Page508Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)6.Jigyosha intaisuru keihinrui noteikyo nikansuru jiko noSeigen andKensho niyoru keihinrui no
teikyo nikansuru jiko noteikyo:
Icannot bepositive from theoriginal text, which does notseem tocite theFTC Notification number, butit
appears that perhaps theUSG hasreversed thefirst two citations. That is,jigyosha no...,thefirst notification
listed intheoriginal Japanese text should correspond tothe“restriction onPremium Offers toBusinesses, ”the
second listing intheEnglish translation. (N.B.: TheUSG hastranslated theword jigyosha here as“businesses. ”)
thus, itseems that theUSG simply cited thetwo notifications indifferent order. Accordingly, Idonnotthink
the“Restrictions onPremium Offers toBusinesses ”should bedeleted, butrather theorder merely ought tobe
reversed.NOTE toArticle 3onPage 226 ofJapan ExD-1:
Thecorrections areright.
Article 4 7.3or13:The GOJ seems tobecorrect inasserting that thearticle inquestion here isArticle 3,notArticle
13.Article 4:
Although theparties didnotraise theissue, Ibelieve themost
appropriate translation oftheheading is"Prohibition ofImproper
Representations."
8.Ippan shohisha nigonin sareru tame:
Thefirst issue seems tobewhether totranslate ippan shohisha as“general consumer, ”astheUSG asserts, or
“consumers ingeneral ”astheGOJ states. Idonotunderstand these two terms tobeparticularly different in
English. Accordingly, Ibelieve either translation would beappropriate. Inthis case, since ippan ,which is
usually translated as“general, ”isused tomodify shohisha (“consumer ”),then perhaps theterm “general
consumer ”istechnically most accurate andcertainly adequately expresses theconcept.Please note that the phrase "ippan-shohisha" appears in
paragraph 3oftheArticle 4and inother places aswell. It
could perhaps also betranslated as"consumers ingeneral,"
however, itisnot apparent whether ornot any material
difference exists between thephrase "general consumer" and
"consumers ingeneral" inthepresent context. Further, "general
consumer" isthemore literal translation.
The second issue iswhether gonin sareru isbetter translated as“shall lead...to believe, ”astheUSG urges, or
as“willbemisunderstood, ”astheGOJ suggests. The word gonin isgenerally translated as“misconceive ”or
“mistake, ”and hasanegative connotation. Ibelieve that theGOJ’stranslation --“will bemisunderstood ”--
better captures that nuance and isperhaps thebest translation. Therefore, Ithink thebetter translation is:
“will bemisunderstood bythegeneral consumer tobe...” One could also translate itas“shall mislead the
general consumer tobelieve... ”Second, theappropriate translation ofthetext atissue inlines 3
and4is:"will bemisunderstood bythegeneral consumer."
9.Torihiki noAitegata:
The USG translates this phrase as“other transacting parties, ”while theGOJ urges “customer ”asthecorrect
translation. Ithink neither isprecisely correct. The more accurate translation isthe“other party inthe
transaction. ”The“other party ”may well bethe“customer, ”buttheoriginal text does notdirectly sostate.WT/DS44/R
Page509Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)10. Dainijo teigi moshikuwa senjyo daisango nokitei niyoru shite moshikuwa daisanjyo (keihinrui no
seigen oyobi kinshi) nokite niyoru seigen moshikuwa kinshi woshi:
The issue here isthecorrect position oftheconjunction “or.”Asunderlined above, moshikuwa ,which is
translated as“or,”appears repeatedly inonesentence. TheUSG andtheGOJ seem todisagree onwhether the
FTC takes action “tolimit orprohibit under ”allthearticle mentioned (which appears tobetheUSG view) or
whether theFTC takes action “tolimit orprohibit under ”theprovisions ofArticle 3only (the GOJ view).
Itappears that theGOJ iscorrect. “Tolimit orprohibit under ”modifies theprovisions ofArticle 3only, and
“effect designation ”modifies both “Article 2(definition) and Section 3ofthepreceding Article. ”Thus, the
correct translation is:“Toeffect designation under theprovisions ofArticle 2(definition) orSection 3ofthe
preceding Article, ortolimit orprohibit under theprovisions ofArticle 3.[emphasis added]
11. Section 3orSection (iii):
Asaminor point, there seems tobeadisagreement onwhether towrite thenumber three as“3"or“(iii).”I
donotthink there isamajor difference between thetwo possibilities, aslong asthereader understands the
precise section towhich thetext isreferring.Article 5:
The Government ofJapan hascorrectly translated this text as
"When the Fair Trade Commission takes action toeffect a
designation under theprovisions ofArticle 2orSection (iii)of
thepreceding Article, ortolimit orprohibit under theprovisions
ofthepreceding Article..."
12. Reference toArticle 4(Futo nahyoji nokinshi ):
TheUSG translates thisphrase as“prohibition onmisleading representations, ”whereas theGOJ uses theword
“of”inplace of“on.”Looking back tothetranslation ofArticle 4,theUSG hadtranslated thesame phrase as
“Prohibition ofmisleading representations. ” Both theUSG and theGOJ had agreed ontheJune 29,1997
translation ofthis phrase previously. Thus, Irecommend using “prohibition ofmisleading representations ”for
reasons ofconsistency.Article 6:
Changes indicated bytheGovernment ofJapan arecorrect. [If
thereferences tothecontent ofprovisions areretained then the
word "misleading" inthefourth lineshould be"improper."]
13. Korera nojisshi nikanren suru koji:
Kanren suru canbetranslated as“beconnected with”or“berelated to.”The USG translation --“making the
implementation ofsuch measures public ”--seems toexclude thefact that theclause isreferring tothe
“matters relating to”theimplementation, astheoriginal text (jisshi nikanren suru)indicates. The GOJ
translation --“making thematters relating totheimplementation ofsuch measures public ”--isthebetter
translation inthisinstance.
14. Shinpan tetsuzuki:
Whether weshould interpret this as“hearing procedure, “astheGOJ asserts, or“adjudgment procedures, ”as
theUSG urges isless important than understanding precisely what ashinpan tetsuzuki is.Inthiscase, thetext
isreferring tothequasi-judicial powers given totheFair Trade Commission. During this process, theFTC
certainly conducts ahearing andmay render some adjudgment.The Government ofJapan has suggested the word "hearing
procedures" inplace oftheword "adjudgment procedures." The
term inJapanese is"shinpan tetsuzuki". Iwould translate this
as"adjudicative procedure." Acease anddesist order under the
Premium and Representation Act isintended tobe an
administrative order. The entrepreneur affected bytheorder
may demand an"adjudicative procedure" ("shinpan tetsuzuki" in
theJapanese language) under Article 8.(Please seeKitagawa,
Doing Business inJapan, Vol.5,Part 9,Paragraph 9.03[5]).WT/DS44/R
Page510Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
Article 7 15. Ko/Jyo/Go:
The issue iswhether totranslate koas“section, ”astheUSG does, oras“clause, ”astheGOJ favours. The
GOJ seems tostate that jyois“article, ”kois“clause, ”andgois“section. ”Ontheother hand, theUSG does
notseem todifferentiate soclearly among these three terms. Again, aswith many other issues inthisItem, I
donotthink itisparticularly important which translation isused, solong asthere isconsistency throughout.
The GOJ approach seems toprovide adequate consistency (and Inote there areplaces where even theUSG
translates koas“clause). Thus, Isuggest adopting theGOJ approach forpurposes ofconsistency: ko=
“clause ”;jyo=“article ”;andgo=“section. ”Article 7:
Changes suggested bytheGovernment ofJapan areacceptable.
Also, thereference to"Article 8(1)"inline5should be"Article
8,clause 1,section 5"not"Article 8(1)."
16. Shitekidokusen nokinshi oyobi kosei torihiki nokakuho nikansuru horitsu:
The more common translation ofthis law is: “intheLaw Concerning Prohibition ofPrivate Monopoly and
Maintenance ofFair Trade, ”assuggested bytheGOJ.
17.Doho daihassho dainisetsu:
Thebetter translation is:“Division 2(procedures) ofChapter VII.
18. Zenjo daiikko:
Using theterms mentioned in#15,supra, Ibelieve thebest translation here is“clause 1ofthepreceding
article, ”assuggested bytheGOJ, rather than “inthepreceding section, ”astheUSG urges.
19. Doko:
Asnoted in#15,forcoherency reasons, Ipropose useoftheGOJ translation: “said clause. ”
20. Zenjyo daiikko:
Thebest translation is:“Clause 1ofthepreceding Article. ”(Please refer to#18,supra.)
21. Shitekidokusen nokinshi oyobi kosei torihiki nokakuho nikansuru horitsu:
Please refer to#16,supra.
Article 8 22. Dairokujo dainiko: Thecorrect reference is“Article 6(2), astheGOJ urges.
23. Koseitorihiki i’inkai kisoku:
Icannot seeany practical orlinguistically significant difference between “Fair Trade Commission Rules ”and
“theRules oftheFair Trade Commission. ”Accordingly, either translation seems fine.Article 8
The difference between the phrase "Fair Trade Commission
Rules" and the"Rules oftheFair Trade Commission" forthe
phrase "kousei torihiki iinkai kisoku" does notseem material as
long asitisused consistently throughout thetranslation.
24. Daigojyujo daijonko:
Asnoted in#15,forthesake ofconsistency, Irecommend theGOJ translation: “Article 50(4). ”WT/DS44/R
Page511Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)25. Sanko :
Forreasons ofconsistency, Irecommend theGOJ translation of“Clause (3).”(Please see#18,supra.)In(2)The word "Section" should be"Article." In(3)"Section"
should be"clause."
Article 9-1 26. kakutei shita shinketsu:
Inalegal context, kakutei isoften translated as“final, ”assuggested bytheUSG, or“irrevocable, ”and
occasionally as“final and conclusive, ”asurged bytheGOJ, aswell. Since addition ofthewords “and
conclusive ”seems tosatisfy thelawyer ’spenchant forverbosity more than forprecision, Idoubt itmatters very
much inthiscontext whether “andconclusive ”isadded. Atthesame time, precisely because itdoes notseem
toaddto,orchange themeaning very much, itcanbeadded tothephrase without harm tothemeaning.Article 9-1
InSection (1)the Japanese language the word atissue is
"kakutei shita hanketsu." Thecorrect translation should be"final
andbinding."
27. Kakutei shita shinketsu: Please see#26,above.
Article 9-2 28. Oyobi:
Thedictionary translation ofoyobi isusually “and.”Atthesame time, inthelegal context, when oyobi isused,
itusually indicates that something may fallunder, orbecontrolled byeither orboth thecategories joined
together bytheword oyobi .The linguistic accommodation ofthat concept inEnglish issometimes “and/or, ”
which isnotabadtranslation ofthetrue meaning ofoyobi inthephrase inquestion.Article 9-2:
The changes indicated bythe Government ofJapan are
acceptable.
29. Jigyosha: Please see#3,supra.
Article 9-3 30. Jigyosha: Please see#3,supra. Article 9-3:
Again, thechange toSection 1iscorrect.
31. Suru mono tosuru:
This phrase isprobably best translated as“should, ”astheGOJ suggests, rather than “shall, ”asurged bythe
USG. Normally, thelanguage ofrequirement, command orobligation inJapanese lawisshinakeraba naranai or
some variation ofthat grammatical form, which would betranslated as“shall. ”When urging orrecommending,
theform ...mono tosuru ismore commonly used. Since thisform isused inthissentence, theGOJ translation
of“should ”ispreferableWith respect toSection (2)theword "should" isnottheliteral
translation. Theappropriate translation here should be"The Fair
Trade Commission, when requested notifies thesaid prefectural
governor
Article 9-4 34. Ikko:
Forconsistency ’ssake, Irecommend “Clause (1),”astheGOJ suggests, rather than “Subsection (1),”asthe
USG translates it.See#15,supra.Article 9-4:
The suggestions oftheGovernment ofJapan arecorrect with
thefollowing exception.
35. Zenjyo:
Irecommend this betranslated as“thepreceding Article ,”astheGOJ suggests, rather than “thepreceding
Section ,”asurged byUSG. See#15,supra.WT/DS44/R
Page512Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)36. Togai Jigyosha:
The word togai isgenerally translated as“thesaid”or“therelevant. ”Use oftheword “concerned, ”asurged
bytheGOJ isclose enough.
37. Sono mono tosono jigyo nikanshite kankei noarujigyosha:
TheGOJ urges first that theword “other ”beused, instead of“related, ”astheUSG suggests. Inpoint offact,
theJapanese version does notusewords that directly correspond toeither “other ”or“related. ”Atthesame
time, itisclear that theentrepreneurs about which thelaw isspeaking arenotthe“concerned ”or“said”
entrepreneur, butrather theother entrepreneurs who have arelationship with thesaid entrepreneur orbusiness.
Thus, insertion oftheword “other ”seems appropriate, and, inallevents, abetter word tousethan theword
“related, ”which isused bytheUSG. Accordingly, Irecommend useoftheword “other ”before entrepreneurs,
assuggested bytheGOJ.Delete thephrase "related entrepreneurs" from line8andinsert
"ofentrepreneurs having relations with such entrepreneurs."
38. Sono mono tosono jigyo nikanshite kankei noarujigyosha :
The GOJ hasurged inclusion ofthephrase “who have business relationship with him”after “entrepreneurs, ”
while theUSG has left that phrase out. Though this isaslightly awkward (and not entirely complete
translation ofthephrase), theUSG hasnevertheless used precisely thistranslation totranslate exactly thesame
phrase earlier inthesentence. Thus, theGOJ suggestion that italso beincluded here, where theJapanese text
isidentical, isentirely appropriate andshould beaccepted.
39.Zenko: Forreasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend theGOJ translation of“Clause, ”rather
than theUSG translation of“Subsection. ”
40. Daiikko: Forreasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend theGOJ translation of“Clause, ”rather
than theUSG translation of“Subsection. ”
Article 10 42. Jigyosha : Please seediscussion relating to#3,supra. Article 10:
Changes suggested bytheGovernment ofJapan arecorrect with
thefollowing exceptions:WT/DS44/R
Page513Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)43. Zenko: Forthereasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend adoption oftheGOJ translation of
“thepreceding Clause ,”rather than theUSG translation of“thepreceding Section .”
44. Kakugo: Forthereasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend adoption oftheGOJ translation of
“each ofthefollowing sections ,”rather than theUSG translation of“each ofthefollowing
paragraphs .”
45. Zenko: Please see#42,supra.
46. Jigyosha: Please seediscussion regarding #3,supra.
47. Daiikko : Forthereasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend adoption oftheGOJ translation of
“under Clause (1),”rather than theUSG translation of“under Subsection (1).”
48. Zenko: Forthereasons discussed in#15,supra, Irecommend adoption oftheGOJ translation of
“thepreceding Clause ,”rather than theUSG translation of“thepreceding Subsection .”
49.The phrase crossed outbytheGOJ --“Inthis case, theprovisions ofSection 6(2) (summary hearing for
cease and desist orders) shall apply mutatis mutandis. ”--isnotfound intheoriginal text ofthelaw
provided.
Article 10-5 50. Kokuhatsu:
The word kokuhatsu isvariously translated inthedictionary as“prosecution, ”astheUSG urges, and as
“accusation, ”astheGOJ suggests, aswell as“indictment, ”“charge, ”andeven “complaint. ”Inthisparticular
context, however, Ibelieve theword “accusation ”best captures themeaning.
InArticle 73oftheAnti-monopoly law, theFTC isrequired, upon thefinding ofevidence ofaviolation ofthat
law, togototheProsecutor General andperform akokuhatsu .Inthiscontext, theFTC does nothave actual
prosecutorial power, butrather that isvested intheprocuracy. Accordingly, what theFTC isdoing ismaking a
“report ”orfiling a“complaint ”ofaviolation ofthelaw. Thus, theword “accusation ”isprobably more
accurate than “prosecution, ”which implies anaction directly against thealleged malefactor.1.Article 10,Clause (5).
With respect tothereference after Article 73"(prosecution)",
Article 73both refers toanaccusation bytheFTC and, in
clause 2,aprosecution bythepublic prosecutor. Therefore,
both thewords "prosecution" and"accusation" could beinserted.
51. Daiikko: Forreasons discussed in#15,supra, Isuggest theGOJ translation of“Clause (1),”rather
than theUSG translation of“Section (1).”
52. Jigyosha: Please seediscussion of#3,supra.
Article 10-6 53. Daiikko: Forreasons discussed in#15,supra, Isuggest theGOJ translation of“Clause (1),”rather
than theUSG translation of“Section (1).”Article 10,Clause (6).WT/DS44/R
Page514Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
16
(contd)54.Inai ni: Useoftheword “within, ”astheGOJ suggests, rather than “in,”astranslated bytheUSG,
probably conveys themeaning slightly more accurately.Article 10,Clause (6)
Neither translation isprecise. Delete thewords between "in" on
line3and"issued" online5.Insert "within thirty days from the
dayofanotification under theprovisions ofClause (4).
55. Gaatta hikara: The GOJ insertion ofthephrase “has been made ”adds clarity and isentirely
consistent with theJapanese. Itisappropriate andtobepreferred.
56. Daiyonko: Forreasons discussed in#15,supra, Isuggest theGOJ translation of“Clause (4),”rather
than theUSG translation of“Subsection (4).”
57. Shinpan Tetsuzuki wohete, Shinketsu womotte:
Inthis context, theGOJ translation --“byadecision after taking ”--istobepreferred to
theUSG translation of“through. ” (However, one might prefer theword “conducting, ”asopposed to
“taking. ”)
Article 11 58.Daihachijo daiikko nokitei niyoru seikyu mata wazenko dairokko nomoshitate wosuru koto ga
dekiru jiko nikansuru utae:
Inthis context, thephrase “...nikansuru utae”iscorrectly translated as“alawsuit relating to”or“alawsuit
regarding..., ”astheGOJ suggests. Moreover, astheGOJ suggests, thisphrase modifies therequest, etc., so
itisalawsuit only that may bebrought tochallenge thedecision.
Moreover, astheGOJ also suggests, attheendofthesentence, thebetter translation is“may only bebrought
against thedecision, ”rather than theUSG translation of“may bebrought ifnotagainst thedecision. ”Article 11:Clause (2)
The phrase "Alawsuit relating to"should beinserted. Again,
"adjudgment procedures" should be"adjudicative procedures" not
"hearing procedures." Theword "only" should beinserted.
59.The GOJ translation of“under Clause ”ispreferred over theUSG translation of“inaccordingly with
Section. ”The change from "inaccordance with" to"under" does not
appear material.
Article 12 60. InArticle 12(2),theGOJ translation istechnically more accurate andIrecommend itinallrespects. Article 12:
Changes suggested bytheGovernment ofJapan arecorrect with
theexception that "individual" should be"person."
17 Inthis context, kamera-rui isprobably most correctly translated as“kinds ofcameras ”or“types of
cameras. ”Itmight also betranslated as“classification category ofcameras, ”which, Ithink, relatively closely
approximates thetranslation contained intheGOJ Submission, namely, “camera category. ”Thebetter explanation isJapan 'stranslation.WT/DS44/R
Page515Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
17
(contd)Asageneral matter, when thesuffix -ruiisattached after aword inJapanese, itgenerally means “kind”or
“class ”or,inthescientific sense, “species ”or“genus. ”Thus, inscience, when thesuffix -ruiisattached to
some type ofanimal orinsect, such asafrog orspider, itgenerally means thegenus offrog orthegenus of
spider. Itwould notgenerally include things “related ”tothefrog orthespider, butrather only different kinds,
types or“genus ”ofspiders.
Inother situations, theword ruigenerally means “ofthis kind”or“ofthis type. ”Thus, ifyou were
referring torecords, theuseoftheword ruiorthesuffix -ruiwould generally mean records “ofthis type”or
“ofthis kind. ”Incustoms classifications aswell, theJapanese suffix -ruigenerally means types orkinds of
that particular product, notthings related tothat product.
18 Ibelieve themost accurate translation ofthedisputed sentence is:“...themajority opinion was that itis
impossible topersuade members [ofZenren] whose main line ofbusiness isdeveloping and printing [to
contribute] if[the code] only [applies to]hardware. ”
The GOJ iscorrect that theauthor isreporting what a“majority ”ofthepeople were expressing astheir
opinion. (That isthepart ofthesentence inJapanese that reads asfollows: toittaiken gatasu atta.)
Ontheother hand, thecritical phrase isHaado dake dewa ,which, inthecontext oftheparagraph and the
sentence itself isbetter translated as“if,”rather than “since ,”“[the code] only [applies to]hardware. ”In
particular, theearlier sentences indicate that executives “first”understood that thecode would also include
photosensitive materials and developing and printing and that with that understanding, they were able to
persuade members ofZenren tocontribute. The next sentence, asIhave translated itabove, then logically
follows. Indeed, thetranslation suggested bytheGOJ would notlogically follow. Within thesentence itself,
moreover, theconstruction dewa suggests “if,”rather than “since. ”Dewa cansometimes mean “since, ”butits
much more common usage is“if.”Myinterpretation oftherelevant text isasfollows: Thebusiness
association, whose members are from the camera, film and
development printing business, isresponsible for its Fair
Competition Code. Since theCode applies only tohardware,
debate arose inameeting ofthis business association with
respect tocontributions made bymembers whose main line of
business isphotosensitized materials ordevelopment printing.
Themeeting concluded byconfirming that thescope oftheCode
inthe future should expand tophotosensitized materials and
development printing.
19 1.“naturally ”:Theliteral translation would notinclude theword, “naturally ”. Ibelieve thefollowing translation tobeaccurate.
"The second illusion isone which has arisen from the
expectation that photosensitized materials and development
printing arealso included inthecamera category under theCode.
Judging from thesimple fact that thetitle oftheCode itself -
"Fair Competition Code Regarding Representations intheCamera
Category Retailers 'lndustry" -clearly reads the "Camera
Category Retailers," one should understand whether ornot
photosensitized materials and development printing are tobe
included.WT/DS44/R
Page516Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
19
(contd)2.“Even though ”:The literal translation would notinclude “even though ”.Nordoes judging from thesimple
fact that seem thebest translation. Rather, themore accurate translation is:“Even ifyouonly look at....”Saying that "[This isbecause] camera shops always handle
photosensitized materials and development printing aswell" is
just quibbling among retailers. Legally, such aninterpretation
should notbeallowed. "Nevertheless, Mr.EijiHashimoto, Vice
Chairman oftheBoard, hasstirred upexpectation bysaying that
this Code naturally includes photosensitized materials and
development printing."
3.“Category ”or“andrelated products ”:AsIhave analyzed before, “kamera-rui ”refers to“kinds ofcameras, ”
or“types ofcameras. ”Even further support forthis proposition isfound inthefact that iftheUSG
translation, “and related products ”isused, much ofthediscussion ofthesecond illusion inthis editorial
loses itsmeaning.Itisstrange that thestanding board members ofZenren blamed
himforsuch astatement. After all,theCode hadalready been
inworking draft since two ormore years ago. From anearly
stage they hadprepared theoriginal draft, including thetitle, and
carried outaninvestigation concerning thedetails. Itistrue
that Vice Chairman, Mr.Hashimoto, repeated statements tothe
general members "that both photosensitized materials and
development printing arenaturally included."
4.“itshould beself-evident whether ornot”or“alone, there seem tobetheimplication that”:Ibelieve amore
accurate translation is:“itseems oneshould beable totellwhether ornot”.This translation, while not
precisely that urged bytheGOJ, isprobably closer totheGOJ’stranslation than that oftheUSG. The
latter translation, that oftheUSG, suggests that thepassage isimplying that photosensitized materials and
development printing would beincluded, yet, intheoriginal text, itdoes not talk about whether the
inclusion orexclusion isimplied.Wouldn 'titbethejoboftheexecutives -namely, thestanding
board ofZenren -tostrictly check intheprocess ofpreparation
oftheCode whether ornotthese two areas canbeincluded as
assumed?
5.“Can”or“might ”:Inthiscase, “can”would betheliteral translation ofthetext, “sare eruka douka. ” Organizationally, Zenren and theFair Trade Promotion Council
(FTPC, previously known asSuishinkyo, but currently as
Kotorikyo) hasinvolved other Zenren executives inaddition tothe
Vice Chairman Hashimoto. Moreover, with Zenren Chairman,
Kimura 'sproud claims, "this isaCode which we retailers
created," itwould indeed bestrange ifZenren executives
(standing board), which neglected even tocheck whether ornot
photosensitized materials and development printing areincluded,
were toblame Vice Chairman Hashimoto alone."
6.“This isbecause ”:Isuggest that this phrase suggested bytheUSG beomitted although itreally does not
seem toaffect thecontent ofthesentence. “This isbecause ”seems tosuggest that thequote isreferring
back tothematerial previously discussed bytheauthor oftheeditorial. Since there areellipses attheend
ofquote, itisunclear what theretailers arereferring to.WT/DS44/R
Page517Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
19
(contd)7.“Camera ”or“camera ”:Should thequote begin with “camera ”,then theword should becapitalized. Ifnot,
theword should beinlower case.
8.“always ”or“must ”:The literal translation of“kanarazu ”isinquestion. The dictionary translation is
“certainly ”,“surely ”or“always ”.Thus, Isuggest thetranslation, “always ”.“Must ”can also mean “is
required to”andcanconnote different nuances notexisting intheoriginal text.
9.“just”or“goes theargument, andthisleads tosome ”:Iprefer theGOJ translation of“just.”The original
text does notmention that “thisleads tosome ”,butrather seems only torefer tothefact that itis“just
quibbling among retailers. ”
10.“Inspite ofthat, Mr.EijiHashimoto, Vice Chairman oftheBoard, hasstirred upexpectation bysaying that
this code naturally includes photosensitized materials and developing printing. ”or“Nevertheless, Deputy
Director EijiHashimoto, has stirred upexpectations byhiscomment, ‘Naturally, thecode should include
photosensitized materials anddevelopment printing. ’”
Issue 1:“Inspite ofthat”or“nevertheless ”:“nimo kakawarazu ”canbetranslated either way.
Issue 2:“Vice Chairman oftheBoard ”or“Deputy Director ”: Vice Chairman isprobably slightly more
literal. Rijiisoften translated asBoard andMr.Hashimoto issecond incommand oftheRiji.Accordingly,
Vice Chairman oftheBoard isperfectly adequate.
Issue 3:“expectation ”or“expectations ”:Ibelieve theUSG translation of“expectations ”isthemore
appropriate translation because theretailers may have more than oneexpectation.
Issue 3:“Naturally ”:Inthiscase, “naturally ”directly modifies “includes ”.
Issue 4:“Includes ”or“should include ”:“Includes ”isprobably thebetter translation because theoriginal
Japanese text says, “fukumeta. ”
Issue 5:Should Mr.Hashimoto ’sstatements beinquotes ornot? The original text uses quotation marks
when hespeaks, soIwould setoffhisremarks inquotation marks, astheUSG hasdone.
Therefore, Iconsider thefollowing themost appropriate translation onthedisputed points:
"Inspite ofthat (orNevertheless), Mr. EijiHashimoto, Vice Chairman ofthe Board, has stirred up
expectations bysaying, “Thecode naturally includes photosensitized materials anddeveloping printing. ”"
Please note, bytheway, Mr.Hashimoto seems tobemaking anassertion, rather than asking aquestion,
soaperiod, rather than aquestion mark, seems most appropriate.WT/DS44/R
Page518Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
19
(contd)11.“such criticism ”or“thetragedy ofthisstatement itself ”:TheGOJ andtheUSG have translated thephrase
~toiuhinan gaindifferent ways. Thedictionary translation ofhinan includes “criticism ”or“blame. ”Inthis
case, theGOJ hasasserted that toiumeans “such. ”Ibelieve thisisaccurate since toiurefers directly to
theprevious clause inquotations. Accordingly, “such criticism ”isanacceptable translation.
12.“this”or“that fact”:The dictionary translation ofkore,theword indispute, is“this”or“this one,”soI
suggest that theGOJ’stranslation --“this”--beused inthisinstance.
13.“Vice Chairman ”or“Deputy Director ”:Forthereasons discussed inNo.(10), issue 2,Iwould use“Vice
Chairman. ”
14.“statements suggest that”or“this query ”:The issue ishow totranslated kano hatsugen .Hatsugen is
usually translated inthe dictionary as“utterance, ”speaking, ”speech, ”or“observation. ”Since Mr.
Hashimoto seems tobemaking astatement, atleast inhisoriginal quotation, rather than asking aquestion,
theword “query ”does notseem entirely apt. Atthesame time, theparticular grammatical structure
used inthis case cansuggest that “questions like”orsomething tothat effect. Accordingly, itcould be
“query ”.Ibelieve thepreferable translation is“statement, ”however, aslong asitisunderstood that
hatsugen refers toMr.Hashimoto ’searlier comments.
Furthermore, while kano canbetranslated as“questions like,”asdiscussed above, inlight ofthenature of
Mr.Hashimoto ’sfirst declaration, Ithink “statement ”isthebest translation and therefore theword kano
would imply inthis case that Mr. Hashimoto is“suggesting ”thestatements inquestion. Therefore,
“statements suggest that”seems anappropriate translation.
15.“Shouldn ’tboth ...naturally beincluded? ”or“Both ...are included .”:Asmentioned earlier, Mr.Hashimoto ’s
remarks appear tobeaffirmative statements, atleast when originally made, and thus considering this a
statement, rather than aquestion, seems most appropriate. Inthat case, thetext would notbegin with
“Shouldn ’t”and would not end with aquestion mark. Asalso discussed above, however, given the
grammatically form used, itcould certainly beotherwise andonecannot categorically state that “Shouldn ’t”
andthequestion mark areincorrect.
The second question iswhether “naturally ”isinthesentence. The word inquestion istouzen and is
generally translated as“justly, ”“properly, ”or“naturally. ”Accordingly, theword “naturally ”should be
included astheUSG suggests, and, Ibelieve, thebest translation is:“Both ...naturally areincluded. ”
16.“ultimately ”:The issue inthis case appears tobethebest meaning oftheword hatashite .USG has
translated itas“ultimately, ”while theGOJ appears tohave leftitoutaltogether. The word does have
meaning andcontent. Accordingly, Iwould include itinthesentence. Atthesame time, Idonotthink
“ultimately ”isthebest translation. Hatashite isoften translated as“After all”or“Asamatter offact,”or
“Inreality. ”Ithink anyofthose translations would beappropriate, especially thefirst two, rather than
“ultimately. ”WT/DS44/R
Page519Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
19
(contd)17.“intheprocess ofthepreparation ofthecodes ”:The issue ishow totranslate sono katei de.The USG
does notseem totranslate thisphrase. Katei deshould betranslated as“intheprocess of~.”
Itismore difficult todetermine theprecise matter towhich sono isreferring. Thecontext surrounding this
phrase refers tothepreparation ofthecodes, especially theeight sentence intherelevant paragraph
(Provisional translation, English). Accordingly, itseems that sono refers tothe“preparation ofthecodes, ”
astheGOJ asasserted.
18.“are”or“can be”:The relevant Japanese text isdekiruka douka ,which usually connotes ameaning of
possibility. Accordingly, Ibelieve theUSG translation of“canbe”ismore correct inthisinstance.
19.“which hasbeen working ontheformulation ofthecodes ”or“which isadvocating thecodes ”:Itisvery
difficult tofollow theprecise disagreement theGOJ haswith theUSG onthis point. Iseetwo points of
major disagreement. First, theGOJ seems tohave leftoutthephrase that refers tothetwo organizations
asbeing “completely separate entities. ”Ifthat omission isintentional, then theUSG translation isclearly
correct. Thetext specifically states that these two entities are“completely ”“separate. ”
The main point, however, seems tobethetranslation ofkiyakuka wosusumete kita.Byitself, thisphrase
isprobably susceptible toeither oftheproffered translations. Asageneral matter, Ibelieve themost
comfortable translation ofsusumete kita is“has proceeded with”.This isinlarge part because the
previous text (eighth sentence oftherelevant paragraph oftheProvisional translation oftheUSG) refers to
theprocess oftheformulation ofthecode. Thus, Iwould suggest thefollowing translation: “which has
proceeded with theformulation ofthecodes ”.
IftheGOJ hasother disagreements with theUSG’stranslation, itmust make those much clearer than it
hasinitscurrent Submission before Icanoffer anyopinion.
20.“hasinvolved ”or“involves ”:Therelevant Japanese text reads kakawatte kita,avery intheperfect tense.
Thus, theGOJ translation ismore accurate inthiscase.
21.“executive ”or“members ”:The word inquestion, yakuin ,generally refers tosomeone inaposition of
authority orresponsibility. Thus, theterm “executive ”or“official ”isprobably amore accurate translation.
22.“Vice Chairman ”or“Deputy Director ”:Please refer toNo.(10), issue 2.
23.“Chairman ”or“Director ”:Forthesame reasons Iaminclined tousetheword “Vice Chairman, ”when
referring toMr.Hashimoto, Iwould usetheword “Chairman ”here, though thedifference isnotparticularly
great.
24.“blame ”or“rely only upon ”:The Japanese verb, semeru can beproperly translated as“blame. ”Itis
usually used inanegative context andgenerally does notmean to“rely upon, ”assuggested bytheUSG.
Thecorrect translation is“blame. ”WT/DS44/R
Page520Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
20 The word teki-hatsu ,asused intheinstant context, isnotaterm ofartinlegal parlance. Indictionaries,
itismost commonly translated as“exposure ”or“disclosure, ”though sometimes itisalso translated as
“prosecution. ”Incasual conversations, itiscommonly used inthecontext of“exposing ”thetruth, “revealing ”
some crime orotherwise “laying bare”thefacts. Atthesame time, itissometimes used, inacasual sense,
torefer toaprosecution or,more broadly, especially when attached totheword ihan [”illegality ”],totheentire
process ofaddressing acrime oranillegal act, covering everything from exposure ofthecrime oracttoarrest
toprosecution andsometimes even punishment.Neither "enforcement action" nor "discovery" seem entirely
appropriate.
Iwould translate "teki-hatsu" as"condemn orcondemnation".
Thus, given that thisstatement was apparently made inthecontext ofapresentation byaJFTC official to
anon-legal specialists audience, itiscertainly possible that theaudience would understand (and perhaps the
official even meant) theentire range ofenforcement activities oftheJFTC were now being relegated tothe
Council.
Atthesame time, itispossible that theofficial had asomewhat narrower meaning inmind, ameaning
more inaccord with thepractices oftheJFTC andextra-legal enforcement activities andmechanisms sometimes
used bytheJFTC. Inthis context, theterm begins totake onasomewhat more specific meaning. But, that
meaning isnotprecisely inaccord with theusage urged byeither theUSG ortheGOJ.
The GOJ urges useoftheword “discovery ”asthecorrect translation. Inacasual sense, that isnot
necessarily aninaccurate translation oftheword, when theword hasitsmeaning ofexposure ordisclosure.
Revealing orexposing thefacts isaform of“discovery ”inthebroad, non-legalistic sense. Atthesame time,
theterm “discovery ”inEnglish isgenerally used inasomewhat more legalistic sense. Inthis more legalistic
sense, itgenerally means arelatively formal process whereby oneparty toalegal proceeding isable tosecure
from theother party information relevant tothelawsuit oraction filed ordefended bythefirst party. When
contemplating “discovery, ”one generally thinks ofasomewhat orderly, legalistic process whereby aparty is
forced todisgorge acertain amount ofinformation inthecontext oflegal proceedings, butunder various
protective legal colourings. While theword teki-hatsu iscertainly associated with exposure ordisclosure, it
generally does notmean disclosure inthetechnical legal sense described immediately above.WT/DS44/R
Page521Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
20
(contd)The USG suggests “enforcement action ”astheappropriate translation. Again, that might berelatively
close towhat theJFTC official was suggesting. Atthesame time, that usage oftheword also needs tobe
qualified. The JFTC has formal legal enforcement powers and can bring aformal legal action against an
allegedly offending party. Inthese actions, theJFTC might seek various remedies, including orders torefrain
from taking theoffending action, topayafine, ortotake other remedial actions. Inextreme cases, theJFTC
may even seek toimpose criminal liability. Asageneral rule, these more formal legal proceedings arenotcalled
teki-hatsu andthus useoftheword “enforcement action ”tocover teki-hatsu may notbethemost appropriate
translation. Moreover, itisnotatallclear that theJFTC cancommit toanon-governmental entity (or,most
probably, even toanother government entity) theformal legal enforcement powers that have been relegated toit
bystatute. Thus, theofficial was probably notsuggesting that this private organization --however much the
government didordidnotparticipate initscreation --should (oreven could) begiven theformal statutorily
mandated enforcement powers oftheJFTC.
Nevertheless, there issome validity totheUSG attempt totranslate teki-hatsu as“enforcement action ”in
part because ofthebroad, general usage ofthis word described above, but, inmuch more important part,
because, onoccasion, theJFTC uses thethreat orthereality ofexposure toencourage allegedly offending
parties toalter their behaviour tocomply with thevarious competition policy laws andregulations. This form
ofpublic exposure orpublic disclosure isused onsome occasions bytheJFTC andoften with relatively good
effect. This kind ofpublic disclosure orexposure isoften called teki-hatsu ,atleast incommon conversation,
and, while notaformal legal enforcement action, itisoften asubstitute forjustsuch anaction anddone with
precisely thesame intent, namely, toforce, through embarrassment andpublic pressure, anallegedly offending
party tochange itsbehaviour inaway that will bring itincompliance with Japanese competition laws,
regulations andpolicies.
While there iscertainly some ambiguity inthestatement oftheJFTC official quoted inthearticle, it
appears that theactivities heanticipates therelevant association toundertake are, ataminimum, thebringing
ofsuch activities totheattention oftheJFTC and, more likely, public disclosure orexposure oftheactivities of
non-complying companies. Ibelieve this most accurately captures themeaning ofwhat this JFTC official
probably meant when heused theterm teki-hatsu .
21 Thetwo principal issues indispute between theGOJ andtheUSG onthisparticular point appears tobe:
(1)whether itisthewarning that is“more severe, ”astheUSG translation suggests, orwhether itisthe
step ofissuing thewritten warning that is“more strict, ”astheGOJ translation would have it;and,
(2) whether thebest word todescribe thewarning orthestep ofissuing thewarning is“severe, ”asthe
USG hastranslated it,or“strict, ”astheGOJ hassuggested initstranslation.Iwould translate this text as:"amore serious step ofissuing
written warning."
Turning tothefirst issue, themost appropriate translation is“more severely [ormore strictly] warn by
means ofawritten warning .” The form inthesentence isclearly theadverbial form and thus “more
strictly ”or“more severely ”clearly modifies theaction ofissuing thewarning.WT/DS44/R
Page522Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
21
(contd)Regarding thesecond issue, inmajor dictionaries theword inquestion --kibishii --isvariously translated as
“severe, ”“strict, ”“stern, ”“rigorous, ”“hard, ”“harsh, ”“stringent, ”etc. Inregard toapenalty, sometimes the
word “Draconian ”isalso used. There isreally noway toknow whether theauthor, had hebeen perfectly
fluent inEnglish, would have used “severe ”or“strict. ”Itisprobably sufficient tonote that theword hasa
connotation ofbeing much more harsh, stringent orrigorous. Whether “strict ”or“severe ”istheprecisely
proper analogue, noonehasanyway ofknowing orsaying with anycertainty.
22 Letmefirst address three points that Ibelieve aresomewhat less important inthis context and perhaps
noteven seriously atissue inregard tothisparticular phrase. First, theUSG uses thephrase “dumping, ”while
theGOJ uses thephrase “unjustifiable low prices. ”While that particular Japanese word canappropriately be
translated as“unjustifiable lowprices, ”astheGOJ does, itisalso fairtosaythat thedescription inthearticle
oftheactivities covered bytheword certainly seems tobewhat wegenerally consider “dumping ”inU.S.
parlance. Inallevents, whether onecalls it“dumping ”or“unjustifiable lowprices, ”thepoint isessentially the
same. This word describes that setofpricing activities that the JFTC considers illegitimate and thus
appropriate targets ofregulatory activity. Either word canbeused aslong asoneunderstands ittomean the
illegitimate pricing activities described earlier inthearticle.The sentence atissue ismuch more vague inthe original
Japanese language than the U.S. translation would seem to
indicate. Ontheother hand, thetranslation bytheGovernment
ofJapan isnoteasily understandable. The misunderstanding
here arises from the fact that the meaning ofthe original
Japanese language sentence itself isvague. Itisnecessary to
construe what theauthor intends should bedone from thetext
andthecontext athand. Mycomments areasfollows.
Second, theUSG uses theword “loss-leader advertising, ”while theGOJ describes such advertising with the
word “bait advertising. ”Again, there isnotmuch tochoose between these two translation. Nevertheless,
perhaps theUSG translation istobeslightly preferred forthefollowing reason. Inconsidering theEnglish
translation ofthisterm, itisimportant torecall that theJFTC official didindicate that allsuch advertising was
automatically inappropriate. Rather, such advertising may beappropriate when quantities oftheloss-leader item
areunlimited; orwhen amounts arelimited andtheadvertisement clearly sospecifies; orwhen customers can
purchase only limited amounts oftheitem and theadvertisement clearly indicates that limit. These arevery
rough examples and may require much more qualification inpractice, butthemain point isrelatively simple:
some advertising ofthis type may not beaproblem from the perspective ofpreventing anti-competitive
practices. Totheextent theterm “bait advertising ”carries theconnotation inEnglish that such advertising is
always unacceptable, then inthisparticular case itmight beslightly misleading. The USG translation of“loss-
leader advertising ”ismore useful because itdoes notinevitably carry aconnotation ofcomplete unacceptability
oftheadvertising practice inquestion.First, itdoes notappear, astheU.S. First Submission indicates,
that theauthor could have intended tosaythat "rules" should
bedeveloped. According tothearticle there arethree options:
(1)rules; (2)operational standards tobeused bytheJFTC in
executing rules; and (3)business practices with respect tofair
competition. Itismyunderstanding that theauthor refers to
business practices rather than rules. This interpretation is
supported bythefact that rules already exist with respect to
such practices. The author appears totake theopinion that the
JFTC should pile-up experience inactually confronting instances
ofunjustifiable low prices and loss leader advertising. The
original text does not explain what this actually means in
concrete terms butappears tointend that theJFTC should deal
with concrete cases based upon experience inastep-by-step
approach.
Third, theUSG starts thephrase with “Nevertheless, ”while theGOJ uses theterm “Also. ”Iwould be
inclined tostart thesentence with “Also, ”rather than “Nevertheless, ”because thesentence does notconvey a
negative ordisjunctive meaning, astheword “Nevertheless ”may convey. Moreover, “nevertheless ”isusually
translated asnimokakawarazu ,and has aconnotation of“nevertheless ”or“notwithstanding, ”while the
Japanese words used inthissentence convey thesense of“Also”or“and.”Second, theU.S. Submission indicates "dumping and loss-leader
advertising" and Japan 'sSubmission translates this as
"unjustifiable low prices and bait advertising." These items
belong tothecategory of"unfair business practices" found in
Chapter 1,Article 2,Section 9and which aredesignated as
such bytheJFTC initsGeneral DesignationsWT/DS44/R
Page523Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
22
(contd)The much more critical question raised bytheGOJ, ofcourse, involves whether thephrase inquestion
specifically mentions “rules”ornot. Asamatter ofprecise language, theGOJ translation ofthesentence in
question isundoubtedly more accurate andtheGOJ isquite correct that thephrase inquestion nowhere uses
theword “rules. ”Asamatter ofsubstantive law, concepts known intheU.S. as
"dumping andloss-leader advertising" donotnecessarily overlap
with the concepts of"unjustifiable low prices and bait
advertising" asprescribed under Japanese law.
Atthesame time, theGOJ says that itis“notclear even from thecontext ”what should bepiled up. On
that point, Ithink thecontext oftheparagraph andthearticles provides more guidance than theGOJ suggests.
Thesixth andseventh fullparagraphs ofthearticle (USG translation) make clear that onemust think about the
nature, purpose and effect ofsales below cost todetermine whether they areunjustifiable, whether they
undermine thecompetitive order bygenerating excessive competition and whether they should be“subject to
regulation. ”Infact, intheseventh paragraph, theauthor explicitly states: “The question iswhat will be
determined asbeing dumping. ”Intheeighth paragraph, theauthor also states:
“The question ishow thestandards forusing [the Premiums Law] willturn out.”Inthesentence immediately
preceding that one, moreover, theauthor notes that: “...the establishment ofstandards touse[the Premiums
Law] must beinstalled asquickly aspossible. ”Allofthese indicate that theprincipal inquiry istheprecise
content ofthese various terms, or,inother words, theprecise content oftherules orstandards that will
govern thisbehaviour.
Thelastsentence oftheeight paragraph (theparagraph immediately preceding paragraph thequestion) also
makes clear thenecessity ofdeveloping thestandards foruseofthePremiums Law toaddress “loss-leader
advertising. ”The first sentence ofparagraph nine then says that sales practices and competition must be
based onrules. The next sentence then mentions one setofstandards orregulations for“normalizing
transactions, ”namely, those ofthephoto industry itself.
Wethen come tothesentence inquestion inwhich theJFTC official says that itisofvital importance or
imperative tobuild uponebyonesomething regarding “unjustifiable lowprices ”and“loss-leader advertising. ”It
takes very little imagination inthis context tounderstand that heisreferring tothedevelopment ofstandards
orexamples ofwhat kinds ofprices are“unjustifiably low”and what kinds of“loss-leader advertising ”is
inappropriate. The sentence isadmittedly notamodel ofclarity, butitisvery easy toinfer that some sorts of
examples orstandards regarding thepractices under discussion need tobedeveloped onebyone.WT/DS44/R
Page524II. Translation Problems pointed outin:
“Written Responses totheInitial Questions bythePanel toJapan (17April 1997)" and “Written Responses toAdditional Questions BythePanel toJapan (18April
1997)"
Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
23 P.6,Fn1: re:Jishu-kisei
The issue iswhether totranslate jishu-kisei as“self-regulating measures ”astheUSG asserts, orwhether
“self-regulation ”ismore appropriate astheGOJ states. Speaking generally, jishu-kisei canbetranslated either
way. “Self-regulation ”may bemore appropriate when thesurrounding context isreferring toself-regulation as
a“concept, ”whereas, thetranslation, “self-regulating measures ”may bethebetter choice when thecontext
seems totalk about “specific measures ”ofself-regulation.[ITEM 1]
Thebetter answer isJapan 'stranslation.
24(1) Theprincipal issues between theUSG andtheGOJ arethefollowing:
(1)Theobject ofwhat hasbeen recognized: whether itisrecognized that theCodes have been observed and
established asnormal business practices, astheGOJ asserts, orwhether itisrecognized ashaving been
established inaccordance with normal business practices, astheUSG urges; and,
(2)Whether thephrase, baai niwaismore accurately translated as“butaslong as”astheUSG claims, oras
“butwhen ”astheGOJ suggests; and,
(3)Whether thephrase, toshite ismore accurately translated as“inaccordance with”as
theUSG claims oras“as”astheGOJ suggests.
Inallthree cases, while alternate translations arealso possible, ifforced tochoose between theUSG andGOJ
translation, theGOJ translation isgenerally technically more accurate.WT/DS44/R
Page525Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
24(1)
(contd)(1)Astothefirst issue, theUSG hasasserted that, kiyaku nonaiyo gajunshu sare (the first phrase in
theoriginal Japanese text) stands independently, andthat theword “recognized ”only modifies what hasbeen
“established ”.The GOJ, ontheother hand, argues that both “observed ”and “established ”aremodified by
theword, “recognized, ”andthus thephrase inquestion should read: “itisrecognized that theCodes have been
observed andestablished asnormal business practices. ”Inother words, theGOJ views “recognized ”ashaving
adistributive function sothat itcarries over toboth phrases (e.g., “observed ”and“established ”)seen inthe
original Japanese text.
Inthisregard, Ibelieve theGOJ iscorrect. Thecontext ofthissentence isadiscussion ofdirect regulation by
theJFTC ofthose who donotparticipate intheCodes, so-called “Outsiders. ”Inparticular, thedisputed
phrase explains when theJFTC will usetheCode asaguide orreference point regarding application ofthe
law. Thus, naturally read, the“but”clause refers toconditions that must prevail fortheJFTC tousethe
Code asareference point when applying thelaw. Therefore, itiswhen theJFTC recognizes that both the
Codes have been both observed and established asnormal business practices that “theJFTC uses theFair
Competition Codes asreference when itapplies thelaw.”(1)Thecorrect translation should be
"but aslong astheCodes areobserved andrecognized as
having been established asnormal business practices".
(2)Regarding thesecond point, Ibelieve that thecorrect translation is“butwhen, ”astheGOJ asserts,
or,inthealternative, “butincase(s) where ~.”TheUSG translation, “butaslong as”isnotincorrect ifthe
context ofthesentence seems toemphasize those parts ofthesentence that follow thedisputed phrase.
However, even inthis context, usually, “butaslong as”would bethedirect translation fornikagiri ;and, in
thecircumstance oftheinstant case, “butwhen ”or“butinthecase(s) where ~”seems tobethebetter choice.
(3) Lastly, toshite usually istranslated as“as,”“for,”“byway of,”or“inthecapacity of.”The USG
translation, “inaccordance with”ismore commonly translated from thephrase, ~niicchi shite ornotouri ni.
Inthiscase, itseems appropriate tousetheGOJ translation of“as.”
24(2) Inthiscase, thekeyissue seems tobehow totranslate ~koto niyotte .Theoriginal Japanese text seems
touse~koto niyotte tomean “if”or“by.”TheUSG translates thisas“byvirtue ofthefact that”ormore like
“because ”.This seemingly suggests that theCode has already been established asnormal practice inthe
photographic industry and that the Code has been strictly obeyed (orobserved). However, from the
surrounding text, itappears that theCode hasnotyetbeen obeyed (orobserved) orestablished, andthat itis
defining anew orsomewhat different standard ofconduct fortheindustry.(2)This isaquestion oftowhom thisCode should apply.
Iwould translate thissentence asfollows:
"Ifthis Code isobserved and isestablished asthenormal
business practices ofthephoto industry, then theJFTC will
refer tothis Code inapplying the Premiums Law to
outsiders.WT/DS44/R
Page526Item No. Michael Young Zentaro Kitagawa
24(2)
(contd)Atthesame time, even theGOJ translation does notmake entirely clear that itisthrough theprocess of
strict observance andestablishment that theCode develops thecharacteristics that result intheJFTC ’susing
theCode asareference point when applying thePremiums Law tooutsiders. Aslong asoneunderstands this
point, however, then theGOJ translation isadequate andprobably slightly closer tothemark than theUSG
translation. That is,theGOJ uses theword “by,”andaslong asoneunderstands that useofthat word in
this context implies that “observing ”and“establishing ”aretwo conditions which need tobemet before the
JFTC applies thePremiums Law tooutsiders, then useoftheword “by”isacceptable.
Another small issue iswhether kore gajunshu sare should betranslated as“tobestrictly obeyed, ”asthe
USG hasasserted, oras“being strictly observed ”astheGOJ hasclaimed. First, thedictionary translation of
“junshu ”is“obeyed ”,“observed ”,or“followed. ”Itdoes notmake much difference which word oneuses here,
butImay support “observed ”here forconsistency reasons. (We hadtranslated “junshu ”as“observed ”inPart
1ofthisquestion.)
Second, onthemore critical issue, Ibelieve that kore gajunshu sare should beseen asanindependent
phrase here, astheGOJ hasinterpreted it.The USG asserts that the“Code hasbeen established...to be
strictly obeyed. ”This shows acausal relationship between “established ”and “obeyed ”.However, Ibelieve
that themore appropriate relationship ofthetwo verbs arethat ofconjunction, andtheGOJ translation, “by
being strictly observed and established asthenormal practices ofthephotographic industry ”adequately
expresses these two conditions. This isconsistent with thediscussion ofthedispute phrase inPart 1ofthis
particular Item, discussed above.
Forthelatter half ofthesentence, Ibelieve that theUSG translation ismore accurate because theUSG
identifies “who”isusing theCode asreference, whereas, intheGOJ translation, thesubject becomes clouded.
Ibelieve theprecise language ofthe sentence and thecontext inwhich itsits allows afairly clearly
identification ofthesubject. TheUSG translation more accurately reflects thisaspect ofthesentence.
Thus, thebest translation here would be:
“The Code, bybeing strictly observed and established asthenormal practices ofthephotographic industry,
willbeused asreference bytheJFTC when itapplies thePremiums Law tooutsiders. ”
__________