WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 26
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
(1) INTRODUCTION
1. Since its previous Trade Policy Review, Japan has continued to liberalize its trade and
investment regimes.  Progress has been made in improving the competitive environment, including in
telecommunications and financial services;  however, potentially important distortions to competition
are still evident in some sectors, particularly agri culture.  Recognizing the continued need to promote
competition, the authorities seemingly attach high priority to further regulatory reform and sound
competition policy.
2. The tariff is Japan's main trade policy instrument.  Most imports enter Japan duty free or are
subject to low tariff rates.  In fiscal year 20021, the simple average applied MFN tariff was 6.9%.
Nearly 99% of tariff lines are bound and most applied tariff rates coincide with bound rates, therebyimparting a high degree of predictability to Japan's tariff schedule.  At the same time, non- ad valorem
duties are an important feature of the tariff, particularly in agriculture.  Such duties, which account for
7.0% of all lines, are indicated clearly in Japan's tariff schedule;  they tend to involve high ad valorem
equivalents (AVE).  Moreover, the bound tariff rates that exceed applied rates mainly pertain to
non-ad valorem  duties.  The Japanese authorities have provided the Secretariat with AVE estimates
for these non- ad valorem  duties;  these estimates show that 95 of the top 100 tariffs entailed non- ad
valorem  duties with AVEs ranging from 47.2% to 1,739% and that the simple average of all specific
rates for which AVEs were available was roughly ten times the simple average of purely ad valorem
tariff rates.  The allocation of tariff quotas varies by product and can be intricate.
3. Japan has few non-tariff border measures.  Those currently applied involve some import
prohibitions, import licensing and quantitative import restrictions, for example, on certain fish and
silk.  Imports of certain goods are subject to licensing requirements in order to ensure nationalsecurity, safeguard consumer health and well-being, or preserve domestic plant and animal life and
the environment.  Like tariff quotas, certain aspects of the import quota system can be intricate.
4. Japan implemented its first safeguard measures in April 2001, imposing provisional
emergency tariffs on three agricultural products;  these expired in November 2001.  One anti-dumping
measure is currently in force in Japan.  Japan has never taken countervailing actions.
5. Japan maintains certain export controls on the grounds of national security and public safety
and to ensure adequate domestic supplies of certain agricultural and other primary products.  Japan
has not notified any export subsidies to the WTO, indicating their absence.  Export finance, insurance,
guarantees, and drawback schemes are available.
6. Various forms of assistance are provided by central and local governments, particularly to
agriculture.  The total value of assistance to ag riculture exceeds the sector's contribution to GDP;
most of the assistance seems to consist of measures that distort production and trade
(Chapter IV(2)(iii)).
2
7. No preferences are granted to domestic suppliers on government procurement covered by the
Agreement on Government Procurement.  The shar e of foreign suppliers in the total value of
government procurement was 6.9% in 2000 (up from 5.7% in 1998).
                                                     
1 The fiscal year (FY) runs from April to March.
2 OECD (2002c).  Data on GDP are available online at:  http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/h14-
nenpou/3main/2gdp/1nominal/1nominal-jhtml (in Japanese).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 27
8. Japan continues to bring its standards into lin e with international standards;  about 90% of
Japan Industrial Standards (JIS) were aligned to their international counterparts as of 31 March 2001,
compared with about half in FY 1997.  It has also taken further steps to ensure acceptance of foreign
test data and conformity assessments.
9. Japan has continued to participate in multilateral and regional discussions for agreements to
promote international harmonization of regimes protecting intellectual property rights (IPRs).
10. The Three-Year Program for Promoting Regulatory Reform (TPPRR), first adopted in
March 2001 and revised in March 2002, is aimed, inter alia , at creating "a free and fair socio-
economic system fully open to the international community".  The TPPRR also contains measures to
increase competition.  Nonetheless, it remains un clear whether the existing enforcement measures
available to Japan's antitrust enforcement agency, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC), aresufficient to constitute an effective deterrent to violations of Japan's competition law, which is
commonly referred to as the Anti-Monopoly Act (AMA).  The Government has made efforts to
increase the JFTC's budget and staff, however, thereb y facilitating investigation of AMA violations.
(2) M
EASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS
(i) Customs clearance
11. The average time between import declaration and import permission decreased between 1998
and 2001, from 5.6 to 4.9 hours for sea cargo and from 0.7 to 0.6 hours for air cargo.  Likewise, the
average time between cargo arrival and import permission dropped from 3.6 to 3.1 days for sea cargo
and from 31.5  to 25.7 hours for air cargo.3
12. Since March 2001, the Government has introduced "simplified import procedures", which are
intended to facilitate importation for authorized importers by reducing the number of data
requirements attached to the importation, allowing declarations to be filed in electronic format, and
allowing actual importation before declaration for duty payment.
13. No legislative changes regarding complaint and appeal procedures have taken place since
2000.4
(ii) Rules of origin
14. Japan is to introduce preferential rules of origin under the Japan–Singapore Economic
Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA), in addition to those under the Generalized System of
Preferences.  Both preferential rules have lists of exceptions for some goods;  the exceptions involve
specific criteria for some goods, such as processing rules and value added on a product-by-product
basis.5  To apply MFN tariff rates, the country of origin for imported goods is defined as the country
                                                     
3 Japan uses the c.i.f. prices of imports (which is taken to be the "transaction value" of the import) as
the basis for customs valuation.  Japan does not employ minimum import prices.
4 Complaints about customs valuation and other customs measures must be filed with the appropriate
Director General of Customs within two months of the date of importation.  Appeals to the Minister of Financemust be made within one month of the decision by the Director General.  If unsatisfied, complainants may seekjudicial review within three months of the Minister's decision. Complaints may also be filed with the Office ofTrade and Investment Ombudsman.
5 Japan's MFN rules of origin adopt in principle the criterion of the change in tariff classification at the
HS 4-digit level.  Japan–Singapore and GSP rules of origin adopt this criterion for many products, but alsoWT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 28
in which the goods have last undergone substantial transformation that results in a new essential
characteristic being conferred on the goods.  The change of tariff classification at the HS 4-digit level
is generally used as a reference point for such tr ansformation.  Detailed information on Japan's rules
of origin is publicly available.6
(iii) Tariffs
(a) Main features
15. Japan's FY2002 tariff schedule consists of 9,304 tariff lines at the Harmonized System (HS)
9-digit level.7   The main features of the schedule concerning MFN tariffs are captured by the
summary indicators for 2000, 2001, 2002, and the full implementation of the Uruguay Round reported
in Table III.1.
(b) MFN tariff bindings
16. In FY2002, 1.1% of Japan's HS 9-digit tariff lines are unbound.  These lines involve a number
of "sensitive" items, notably certain fisheries products (including seaweed), certain wood products,
and petroleum.  By and large, bound and applied rates coincide, thereby ensuring a high degree of
tariff predictability.8  Bound rates exceed applied rates only on certain agricultural items, food
products, alcohol beverages, tobacco, chemicals, and petroleum, which are largely subject to non- ad
valorem  duties.
(c) Duty-free items
17. In FY2002, about 37% of Japan's tariff lines (at the 9-digit level) bore a zero rate.  This
proportion is expected to rise to 41.2% once the Uruguay Round is fully implemented, in 2009.9
(d) Non- ad valorem  duties
18. In FY2002, non- ad valorem  duties accounted for 7.0% (651 lines) of all Japan's tariff lines
(6.9% (628 lines) in FY2000), at the HS 9-digit level.  Non- ad valorem  duties consist of compound
                                                                                                                                                                    
adopt, for example, the processing operations criterion for some products.  In the case of JSEPA rules of origin,
the value-added criterion is applied to very few products;  and the rules of origin apply only to agreed productsthat are conceded by Japan and Singapore.
6 For example, in the Customs-related Laws and Regulations, Director-General's Directives, and APEC
Compendium on Rules of Origin.
7 Japan's FY2002 tariff schedule is based on HS Nomenclature 2002.  The total number of tariff lines
excluding the in-quota rates of tariff quotas is 9,109.  The Japanese tariff schedule has three distinct sets of rates:statutory rates (which include both general and temporary rates), WTO bound rates, and preferential rates.  Inthe case of statutory rates, the "temporary" rate is always applied instead of the general rate;  the lower of thestatutory and bound rates are applied to WTO Members on  an MFN basis, except when preferential rates are
applied.  Under a tariff line, there may be multiple tempor ary rates for a particular fiscal year;  the Secretariat
used the lowest rate in each line for the calculation of tariff averages for each fiscal year.
8 Some 94% of Japan's applied tariffs are currently identical to the bound rates.
9 Current applied MFN tariffs reflect Japan's sche duled reductions under the WTO Agreement;  they
also reflect the tariffication in April 1999 of the quantitative restriction on imports of rice as well as the resultsof the Information Technology Agreement and agreements on pharmaceuticals.  With certain exceptions,
Japan’s agricultural tariff reductions under the Uruguay Round were completed over six years (by April 2000)
and industrial tariff reductions over five years (by January 1999).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 29
duties10, alternate duties11, differential duties12, and sliding duties13, all of which include specific rates.
The authorities maintain that such duties are ge nerally intended to provide consistent levels of
protection to domestic products facing fluctuations in import prices.
Table III.1
Structure of applied MFN tariffs in Japan
(Per cent)
FY1998aFY1999bFY2000cFY2001cFY2002cU.R.cd
1. Bound tariff lines (% of all tariff lines) 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.9
2. Duty free tariff lines (% of tariff lines) 37.7 36.6 36.7 36.8 36.7 40.6
3. Non- ad valorem  tariffs (% of all tariff lines) 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.3
4. Tariff quotas (% of all tariff lines) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1
5. Non- ad valorem  tariffs with no AVEs (% of all tariff lines) 6.8 2.0 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3
6. Simple average bound rate 5.6 8.0 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.4
Agricultural products (HS01-24) 12.4 24.5 27.2 27.0 26.6 26.6
Industrial products (HS25-97) 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.9
7. Simple average applied rate 5.4 6.7 7.1 6.9 6.9 ..
Agricultural products (HS01-24)e11.8 17.5 18.9 18.8 18.6 ..
Industrial products (HS25-97) 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 ..
8.Domestic tariff "spikes"f6.8 5.5 4.7 5.7 6.0 3.8
9.International tariff "spikes"g7.4 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.5
10. Overall standard deviation (SD) of tariff rates 7.6 24.8 33.4 33.1 32.4 59.9
11. Coefficient of variation (CV) of tariff rates 1.4 3.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 7.2
.. Not available.
a Not including AVEs, but taking into account the ad valorem  part of compound and alternate rates.
b Using 1999 AVEs, as available, provided by the Japanese authorities.  In case of unavailability, the  ad valorem  part is used for
compound and alternate rates.
c Using 2000 AVEs, as available, provided by the Japanese authorities.  In case of unavailability, the  ad valorem  part is used for
compound and alternate rates.  For FY 2001, FY2002, U.R. and b ound rates, the 2000 AVEs have been adjusted accordingly (e.g.
a specific tariff line's MFN applied rate equals 100 yen/kg. in 2000.  The given 2000 AVE equals 50%.  For the same line the
bound rate equals 150 yen/kg. in 2000 and in 2001 its applied rate equals 75 yen/kg.  Their AVEs become 75% and 37.5%,
respectively.  Japan's tariff schedule has been based on HS Nomenclature 2002 since January 2002.
d Based on FY2002 tariff schedule.e Under the definition used in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture the simple average applied tariff on agricultural imports is
20.1% in FY2002.
f Domestic tariff spikes are defined as those exceeding three times the overall simple average applied rate (indicator 7.).g International tariff spikes are defined as those exceeding 15%.
Note: Indicators 1,3 and 4 are calculated taking into account all tariff lines (i.e. in-quota and out-of-quota tariff lines).  E ach of the
other indicators exclude in-quota lines.  FY2002 is based on HS 2002;  FY1998-01 is based on HS 1996 nomenclature.
Source: WTO calculations, based on data provided by the Japanese authorities.
                                                     
10 A compound duty involves a combination of ad valorem  and specific rates.
11 An alternate duty involves either an ad valorem  or specific rate;  usually the higher of the two is
applied.
12 A differential duty involves a specific rate charged per kg. of imports with the rate varying directly
with the difference between the standard import price, set by the authorities, and the actual import price.  Itwould appear that differential duties are designed to  protect domestic producers from surges in low-priced
imports.
13 Sliding duties are apparently intended to protect  domestic consumers of the product concerned from
a surge in import prices.  They involve a specific tariff rate for imports whose value is no more than a certain
threshold;  the rate declines as the value exceeds the threshold and becomes zero at a certain point.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 30
19. Japan's non- ad valorem  duties apply mainly to agricultural products (Chart III.1).
Non- ad valorem  duties are indicated clearly in Japan's tariff schedule and the Japanese authorities
have ensured the transparency of roughly half of these duties by providing estimates of their AVEs.14
These official estimates show that 95 of the top 100 tariffs entailed non- ad valorem  duties with  AVEs
that ranged from 47.2% to 1,739%, indicating that specific duties can result in high ad valorem
equivalents.  The simple average of all specific tariff rates whose AVEs were available was 44.2%,which is roughly ten times the simple average of purely  ad valorem  tariff rates, which was 4.5%.  It
should be noted that every method of calculating AVEs is subject to bias and that AVEs can vary
widely depending on the import prices of the products involved;  these tend to be partly determined by
exchange rate changes.
15
                                                     
14 The lack of estimates for the remaining one third of specific duties is seemingly due in some
instances to the absence of imports, which may suggest that the specific rates in question may be prohibitive.
The most recent estimates of AVEs available were for 1999.
15 See also WTO (2001), Box III.1.(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)(29)(74)
(57)(36)
(121)
(27)
(5)(6)
(0) (0) (0)(266)(28)
(651)
(0)(2)(0)
051015202530354045Chart III.1
Share of non- ad valorem  duties, by HS section, FY2002
Per cent
Note:
Source :Each bar in the chart depicts the percenta ge of tariff lines out of the total within each HS section that 
are non- ad valorem  duties.  The fi gure in parentheses above each bar shows the number of tariff lines 
in each HS section involving non- ad valorem rates.  Excluding in-quota rates.  
WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data provided b y Japanese authorities.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 31
20. As a result of the considerable decline in Japan's import prices during the period under review
(2000-02), real protection for some products subject to specific duties may have increased,
notwithstanding cuts in their applied rates.16 
(e) Tariff quotas
21. In FY2002, tariff quotas covered 2.1% (2.0% in FY2000) of all tariff lines (at the 9-digit
level).17  Less than 25% of the out-of-quota rates were ad valorem , compared with 100% of the in-
quota rates.  The simple average in-quota MFN tariff rate is estimated to be 18.3%;  the corresponding
average out-of-quota MFN tariff was 125.5% (including AVEs of non- ad valorem  duties).
22. The quota allocation method tends to be intricate.  In the case of tanned leather, the in-quota
amount is divided into a "general quota" (95% of the annual quota amount) and "reserved quota"
(remaining 5%).  A corporation or an individual undertaking the production, sale or import of tannedleather or related goods is eligible for quota allocation.  The general quota is allocated to applicants
who were licensees in the previous year or two.  When the total requested amount exceeds the quota,
each applicant is allocated a pro rata  share.  The reserved quota is allocated to those who did not
apply for either the general or reserved quota in the previous year.  Quotas not filled by any of the
above applicants, as well as those returned unused are reallocated to applicants on an "equal basis".In the case of agricultural products, quota allocation is based upon historical imports and current and
future plans for imports.
18  The in-quota amount is divided into sub-quota amounts according to end-
use requirement;  those eligible for quota allocations must undertake the production or sale (to
particular end-users) of the agricultural products concerned.  Tariff quotas may not be allocated to
applicants that currently import substitutes for the ite ms subject to the quota (e.g. corn other than the
types subject to a tariff quota).  Any part of the allocated quota not used by importers must be
returned to the Minister of the MAFF with written certification;  unused quotas are not reallocated,except for some products such as evaporated milk, for which tariff quotas have been subject to
reallocation since 2002;  and transfer of quotas is not permitted.
(f) Tariff averages
23. In FY2002, the overall simple applied MFN tariff average was 6.9%, down from 7.1% in
2000.  HS categories of products with the highest simple tariff averages were footwear and headgearagricultural products and prepared food (Chart III.2).
19
                                                     
16 Japan's import prices fell by 12.2% in 1999, although in 2000 and 2001 they rose by 4.7% and 5.1%
respectively (OECD, 2002a).
17 Tariff lines subject to tariff quotas include those for 20 groups of agricultural products "tariffied"
under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (See WTO, 2001, Table AIII.2), and a system of autonomous tariffquotas, primarily for the purpose of providing low-cost inputs for industrial purposes (WTO, 2001,
Table AIII.3).
18 The ministerial ordinance on the tariff-quota system of the product concerned:  quota volume,
submission date for written application, name of authority to submit it to, qualification requirement, applicationcriteria, and documents to be attached are decided and notified though the public notices for tariff-quotaallocation of each product in early April, through the web site of MAFF, METI announcement, and METI'sGazette .
19 Once the Japan–Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership enters into force, the
overall simple applied preferential tariff average will be 4.7% including AVEs, and 2.6% excluding AVEs.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 32
(g) Tariff dispersion
24. In addition to the 36.7% of tariff lines that are duty free, 27.6% lines are subject to applied
tariff rates of 5% or less (Chart III.3).  Tariff spikes, that is rates exceeding three times the simple
applied MFN average, affect 6.0% of all tariff lines in FY2002.
(h) Tariff escalation
25. Tariff escalation is present in a number of subsectors, most notably leather products
(Table AIII.1).  Tariff escalation means that the level of effective tariff protection increases as goods
in these sectors undergo further processing; it thus tends to promote primary and semi-finished goods,
thereby possibly slowing the industrialization of de veloping countries, if not mitigated by the GSP.
Full implementation of the Uruguay Round will not change this situation.0510152025303540Chart III.2
Simple average applied MFN tariff rates, by HS section
Per cent
Excluding in-quota rates.  Including ad valorem  equivalents (AVEs) provided by the Japanese authorities, as 
available.   The ad valorem  part of compound and alternate rates are taken into account where AVEs are not 
available.  FY2000 is based on HS96 and FY is based on HS02 nomenclature.  
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the Japanese authorities.Note:
Source :FY2000
FY2002Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 33
(i) Tariff reduction and exemptions
26. Customs duty reductions and exemptions for FY2001 amounted to about ¥186.0 billion,
which accounted for about 21% of total tariffs collected.20
(j) Tariff adjustments
27. Tariff changes implemented by Japan in FY2001 included a ten-year extension of the GSP,
enlargement of duty-free and quota-free market access under the GSP for LDC's exports, and the
reduction or elimination of tariffs on certain corn and chemical products.  The FY2002 tariff changesincluded an increase of tariff rates on refined salt, in response to the abolition of state trading
requirement for salt imports, and reduction of tariff rates on certain petroleum products.
(iv) Non-tariff border measures
28. Since the previous Trade Policy Review of Japan in 2000, there has been little change in its
import prohibitions, import licensing, and quantitative restrictions.
21
                                                     
20 Details of Japan's system of tariff reductions and exemptions, which has remained unchanged since
2000, are found in WTO (2001), Tables AIII.5 and AIII.6.
21 The non-tariff border measures currently applied by Japan involve import prohibitions, import
licensing, and quantitative restrictions.  The importation of certain goods may be prohibited or subject to
licensing in order to ensure national security, safeguard  consumer health and well-being, or preserve domestic0510152025303540
Duty-
free>0-5 >5-10 >10-15 >15-20 >20-25 >25-30 >30-35 >35-40 >40-45 >45-50 >50Chart III.3
Applied MFN tariff distribution, FY2002
Per cent
Including AVEs of non- ad valorem  duties, as available.  In case of missing AVEs, specific rates 
have been excluded from the tariff analysis and averages for compound and alternate rates have been calculated on the basis of the ad valorem  component of such rates.   Excluding in-quota rates.
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on da ta provided by the Japanese authorities.Note:
Source :Tariff ratesWT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 34
29. There has been no change either in the list of prohibited imports22, or in the licensing and
approval procedures since 2000.23  Since January 2000, changes in the list of items requiring import
approval have included the addition of bluefin tuna from Equatorial Guinea, swordfish from Belize,
diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia, chemi cals falling under the Chemical Weapons Convention
Schedule 2, and bigeye tuna from Equatorial Guinea, Belize, Cambodia, Honduras, and Saint
Vincent.24  Bluefin tuna from Honduras, which had be en on the list since 1997, and swordfish from
Honduras, which had been on the list since 2000, were deleted from the list in June 2002.
(a) Import quotas
30. Japan maintains import quotas on various items, including certain fish products, certain
organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, explosives, rubber adhesives, military equipment and firearms,
and silk yarn and silk fabric shipped from China and South Korea (Table AIII.2).  Since 2000, cod hasbeen separated from the fish and shellfish quota in the list of import quotas (Table AIII.3);  there has
been no change in the quota allocation method since 2000.
25
(b) Import surveillance
31. Changes since 2000 in Japan's import surveillance system include a customs confirmation
requirement for southern bluefin tuna (fresh or chilled);  prior confirmation requirement forpatagonian toothfish, southern bluefin tuna (frozen), and African elephant imported from
South Africa;  and the elimination of the import confirmation requirement for alcohol in 2001.
26
                                                                                                                                                                    
plant and animal life and the environment.  Some commodities, including fish, silk yarn, and certain silk fabrics,
are subject to import quotas or restraints under bilateral trade agreements and arrangements with, for example,
China and the Republic of Korea.  In addition, import surveillance is employed for certain products to confirmplace-of-origin and documentation requirements.
22 Several laws and regulations provide for import prohibitions in Japan.  For example, prohibited
imports classified in the Customs Tariff Law are illustrat ed under five categories:  narcotics;  revolvers and
pistols;  imitation currencies;  books and other articles considered contrary to public security or morality;  and
articles infringing patents or other intellectual property rights.  Import prohibitions pertaining to items listed in
Annex I to the Convention on International Trade in En dangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) are
specified in the Import Control Order. Directors-Gene ral of Customs are empowered to confiscate prohibited
import items at the border or order their reshipment.
23 Import licensing in Japan is primarily intended to enforce health, public security or environmental
measures;  it is also used to implement border protection schemes for agriculture and other policy measures (for
example, to ensure compliance with bilateral agreements on silk yarn and silk fabrics).
24 Approval from the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry is required to import goods subject to
Japan's international arrangements;  such arrangements relate to commodities covered by its membership ofinternational commodity and bilateral agreements.  Other import approval requirements in Japan can be found inWTO (2001), Table AIII.7.
25 Details of Japan's import quota allocation meth od are described in WTO (2001), Chapter III(2)(v)(c).
26 The intent of the system of prior confirmation is to collect data concerning imports, monitor and
confirm that imports are for specific uses, and verify documentation and origin requirements.  Priorconfirmation is required from the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, or other relevant ministers, forsome imports such as silk fabrics, tuna, marlin, whales, certain species listed in Appendices II and III of CITES,microbial vaccines, and uranium catalysts.  Import surveillance is also operated though the customs
confirmation system, which requires lodging of specified documents with customs authorities (WTO, 2001,
Chapter III(2)(v)(d)).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 35
(v) Contingency measures
32. Japan implemented its first safeguard measures in April 2001 by imposing provisional
emergency tariffs on three agricultural products:  Welsh onions, Shiitake mushrooms and
tatami-omote imported mainly from China.27  Following the expiry of these measures, on
8 November 2001, after 200 days of application, Japan is continuing its surveillance of imports of
these items.  A non-governmental council of agriculture trade has been established consisting of agri-industries in Japan and China;  its aim is to exchange information on market demand trends, product
quality, and the means of achieving "orderly trade" in the three products.
28  According to the
authorities however, participants in the council merely exchange information on market trends and
improvements in the quality of the three items.  Government officials of the two countries have
participated in the Council's meetings, which were held several times in the first half of 2002.
33. In April 2001, Article 9 of Cabinet Order Relati ng to Emergency Duties was amended;  the
amendment formally allowed any Minister seeking initiation of a safeguard procedure to submit to the
MOF and the METI relevant data that may be required for judging whether there is sufficient
evidence to initiate an investigation.  Following a request by the MAFF for initiation of safeguard
procedures for tomatoes, bell peppers, and onions, the competent authority concluded in 2000 thatthere was not sufficient evidence to initiate inves tigations and that further examination was required.
34. Japan has in place one anti-dumping measure, which was imposed on certain polyester staple
fibre from the Republic of Korea and Chinese Taipei on 26 July 2002.  To date, Japan has never taken
countervailing actions.
35. In response to safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain steel,
Japan notified the WTO that it had proposed to suspend the application of substantially equivalent
concessions or other obligations by imposing a duty increase on selected products imported from theUnited States.  However, to date, Japan has postponed the proposed suspension of concession.
29
36. Japan is to introduce domestic legislation, in accordance with safeguard provisions stipulated
in the Japan–Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA), which would
allow an emergency tariff increase on a duty-free item bound in the JSEPA within the level of the
general tariff for the item concerned.
(vi) Government procurement
37. According to the OECD, Japan' s total government procurement amounted to about 16.8% of
GDP in 1998.30  Japan is a signatory to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).31
Its GPA coverage encompasses all central government entities, all 47 prefectures, all "designated
                                                     
27 G/SG/N/7/JPN/1 G/SG/N/11/JPN/1 dated 25 April 2001.
28 See, for example, a MAFF press releases ava ilable [online] at http://www.maff.go.jp/www/press/
cont/20020527press_1.html and the MAFF ministers' remarks available [online] at http://www.kanbou.maff.go.jp/kouhou/020111daijin.htm.
29 WTO document G/C/15 (G/SG/44), 21 May 2002.
30 OECD (2002b).  Total government procurement involves expenditure on both consumption and
investment.
31 Since its previous Trade Policy Review, Japan's thresholds for GPA coverage, expressed in yen have
decreased, perhaps reflecting the appreciation of the cu rrency, while those expressed in SDRs have remained
unchanged, except for the setting-up of new sub-categories for construction services under Annex 3 and their
corresponding thresholds. (WTO document GPA/W/101/Add.2 and 168/Add.4, 2 March 2000 and
18 March 2002).WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 36
cities", and certain public corporations.32  Japan notified the WTO Committee on Government
Procurement of the removal of three railway compan ies from the "List of Entities" and from the "List
of Entities which procure the services, specified in Annex 4" following their recent privatization.33
38. In FY2001, the Government started to provide integrated procurement information through
the Internet.34  In January 2001, the Government also unified the qualification for participating in
competitive contracts (excluding procurement involving public works) with central governmententities, and established a unified list of qualified suppliers;  a supplier may now submit an application
to any central government entity, and the qualification obtained is effective for all central government
entities.
35  The Government plans to allow the opening and submission of tenders through the Internet
by the end of FY2003.  Since October 2001, opening and submission of tenders for part of public
works under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) has beenmade possible though a government website.
36  The MLIT also started publicizing prospects of orders
and information on tenders and contracts for public works through its website in April 2001.37
39. The Government carries out annual reviews of its voluntary measures under, inter alia , the
1994 Action Program on Government Procurement Procedures, as amended.38  The Voluntary Review
Meeting under the Action Program on Government Procurement, held every year, is conducted toprovide domestic and foreign suppliers an opportunity to raise opinions on the implementation of the
voluntary measures, to ensure transparency, fairness and competitiveness in procurement procedures,
and to facilitate market access of domestic and foreign suppliers.  At each annual meeting, an
Initiative on Future Management of Government Procurement is confirmed.  Procurements under the
Action Plan on Reform of Bidding and Contracting Procedures for Public Works are not subject to
this Voluntary Review Meeting.  The authoritie s state that government procurement is conducted
without restriction on suppliers' nationality or on the origin of products or services, based on the
principle of non-discrimination, and that all releva nt entities have thoroughly implemented the GPA;
no price or other kind of preferences are granted to domestic suppliers in tenders covered by the GPA.
40. For procurement above the threshold level of SDR 100,000 specified under the 1994 Action
Program, excluding procurement involving public works, open tendering accounted for 67.6% of the
total procurement value of ¥1.04 trillion in 2000;  procurement of overseas goods and servicesaccounted for 14.7% (17.4% for goods only) of the total (Table III.2).  According to the authorities,
no data exist on the shares of open, selective, and single tendering, and shares of foreign suppliers in
public works contracts;  almost all public works projects valued at or above the threshold of the WTO
Agreement on Government Procurement are subject to open competitive bidding.  The share of
selective tendering fell to 1.6% in 2000, while that of single tendering rose to 30.8%, compared with
                                                     
32 The designated cities are twelve cities with populations over 500,000, designated by a relevant
Cabinet Order. The Accounts Law and relevant ordinances specify the procurement procedures for the central
government entities, while the Local Autonomy Law stipulates procurement procedures for local governments.
33  These companies, which were initially privatized (p artially) in 1987, were eliminated from the list of
companies subject to the Japan Railway Companies Law in 2001;  the Government currently holds substantialamounts of the companies' shares but plans to sell them in the market.  For details, see WTO documentsGPA/W/144, 145, and 146, 29 August 2001.  Other changes in Japan's GPA coverage since the previous Review
are in WTO documents GPA/W/122/Rev.1, 129, 137, 186, and WT/Let/400.
34 Appendix 6 of the "Guide to the Government Procurement Market of Japan" [Online].  Available at:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/procurement.
35 Appendix 3 of the "Guide to the Government Procurement Market of Japan" and
http://www/chotatujoho.go.jp/va/com/TopPage.html.
36 http://www.e-bisc.go.jp/denshi.html.
37 http://www.ppi.go.jp.
38 For details of these measures see WTO (2001), Chapter III(2)(vii).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 37
3.6% and 26.7%, respectively, in 1997.39  Procurement from foreign suppliers, which has always been
low, rose in 2000, to 6.9% and 2.7% in value a nd contract terms, compared with 5.6% and 2.1%,
respectively, in 1998.  The shares of foreign suppliers in contracts resulting from open, selective, and
single tenders were 1.7%, 0.0%, and 3.2% in 2000 (the ratios in 1998 were 1.8%, 0.4% and 2.7%).40
Table III.2
Procurement composition by product and by origin, 2000
(¥ 100 million and per cent)
Share
No. ProductsTotal
value Domestic Foreign
1. Products from agriculture, and from agricultural and food processing industries 1.3 100 0
2. Mineral products 181.5 9.4 90.6
3. Products of the chemical and allied industries 29.4 73.1 26.9
4. Medicinal and pharmaceutical products 269 68.9 31.1
5. Artificial resins and plastic materials, cellulose esters and ethers, and articles thereof;
rubber, synthetic rubber, factice, and articles thereof;  raw hides and skins, leather, furskins
and articles thereof, other than articles of apparel and clothing accessories of leather,
saddlery and harness, articles of animal gut29.5 82.7 17.3
6. Wood and articles of wood;  wood charcoal;  cork and articles of cork;  paper making
material;  paper and paperboard and articles thereof;  manufactures of straw of esparto and
of other planting materials, basketwork and wickerwork160 100 0
7. Textiles and textile articles, footwear, headgear, umbrellas;  sunshades;  walking sticks,
whips, riding crops and parts thereof;  travel goods;  hand-bags and similar containers;
articles of apparel and clothing accessories, of leather or composition leather125 99.4 0.6
8. Articles of stone, plaster, asbestos, mica and similar materials;  ceramic products, other
than sanitary fixtures;  glass and glassware, other than illuminating and signalling
glassware and optical elements of glass, not optically worked nor of optical glass5.5 99.6 0.4
9. Iron and steel and articles thereof, other than boilers and radiators for central heating, air
heaters and hot air distributors not electronically heated130.8 99.4 0.6
10. Non-ferrous metals and articles, other than lamp and lighting fittings 78.7 99.6 0.4
11. Power generating machinery and equipment 14.8 92.9 7.1
12. Machinery specialized for particular industries 89.5 95.8 4.2
13. General industrial machinery and equipment, and machine parts 77.5 94.8 5.2
14. Office machines and automatic data processing equipment 2,106.5 88.8 11.2
15. Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment 1,388.6 85.9 14.1
16. Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, and electrical parts thereof 243.5 90.8 9.2
17. Road vehicles 412.5 99.9 0.1
18. Railway vehicles and associated equipment 104 48 52
19. Aircraft and associated equipment 103.8 1.6 98.4
20. Ships, boats, and floating structures 59.2 96.5 3.5
21. Sanitary, plumbing, and heating equipment 3.5 100 0
22. Medical, dental, surgical and veterinary equipment 685.6 63.5 36.5
23. Furniture and parts thereof 77.7 98.7 1.3
24. Professional, scientific and controlling instruments and apparatus 1,007.1 80.6 19.4
25. Photographic apparatus, equipment and optional goods;  watches and clocks 119.5 80.8 19.2
26. Miscellaneous articles 388.1 95 5
Total 7,892.1 82.6 17.4
Source: Information provided by the Japanese authorities.
                                                     
39 The shares of selective tendering and single tendering were 4.2% and 19.7% in 1995.
40 In order to participate in open or selective tendering procedures, domestic and foreign suppliers are
required to apply for qualification to each procuring entity and be included in the list of registered suppliers.  In
2000, the share of foreign suppliers in the total number of registered suppliers was 0.7%.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 38
41. Data provided by the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) show that most cases of
proven infringement of Japan's Anti-Monopoly Act (AMA) continue to involve bid rigging
(section (5)(vii)).  To preventing bid-rigging and other improper actions, the Act for Promoting Proper
Tendering and Contracting for Public Works ente red into force in April 2001. The Act introduced,
inter alia , an obligation on entities procuring public works to publicize information on tendering and
contracts and to inform the Fair Trade Commission of improper actions (e.g. bid rigging).41
Infringement of the requirements may result in disqualification from the particular bid;  no other
penalty may necessarily be entailed unless legal measures under the AMA are taken by the JFTC.
42. The Office of Government Procurement Revi ew (OGPR), headed by the Chief Cabinet
Secretary, processes complaints concerning procurement procedures by the Central Government and
public corporations.  The Government Procurement Review Board, an independent examining body,considers complaints.
42  The procuring entity is expected to follow the recommendations voluntarily.
Since the previous Review of Japan, five complains have been filed.43  For local governments covered
by the GPA, complaints may be addressed to the contact points set up in each local government.
(vii) State trading
43. State trading activities in Japan involve leaf tobacco, opium, alcohol, rice, wheat and barley,
milk products, and raw silk.44  On 31 March 2002, the Salt Industry Centre of Japan ceased its role of
state trading enterprise owing to the deregulation of salt business.45  METI's monopoly on the
production and distribution of certain industrial alcohol was taken over by the new Energy and
Industrial Technology Development Organizatio n (NEDO) on 31 March 2001;  NEDO's monopoly is
to be granted as a temporary measure for about five years.
(viii) Standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures
(a) Standards, testing, and conformity assessment
44. Japan has moved toward increased deregulation and international harmonization of its
standards and technical regulations and the adoption of mutual recognition arrangements.  The
Three-Year Program for Promoting Regulatory Reform (TPPRR), as revised on 29 March 2002,
includes  self-certification on telecommunications equipment and relaxation of mandatory technical
regulations on electric appliances.  Japan's voluntary standards, mandatory technical regulations, andsanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations are summarized in Table III.3.
                                                     
41 Entities include all entities in Japan's Annexes 1 and 2, and 40 quasi-governmental agencies cited in
the enforcement order of the Act.  See WTO document GPA/61, pp. 17-30, 18 October 2001, andhttp://www.mlit.go.jp/sogoseisaku/const/tekiseikahou/tentative-translation.htm
42 WTO (2001), Chapter III(2)(vii).
43 The status of receipt and review of complaints is released every quarter.  The "Review Procedures
for Complaints Concerning Government Procurement" (14 December 1995, a decision by the OGBR),
encourage consultations between a complainant and a procuring entity before a complaint is filed.  Theauthorities state that many complaints have been resolved through consultation.
44 The stated aims of such trading include: stabilizing supplies to consumers;  controlling imports to
assist domestic producers;  and protection of consumers' interests.   State-trading activities are generally
underpinned by legislated import rights and, in some cases, by specific monopoly rights over domestic
production and distribution.
45 WTO document G/STR/N/7/JPN, 6 August 2001.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 39
Voluntary standards
45. Voluntary standards in Japan comprise Japan Industrial Standards (JIS) and Japan
Agricultural Standards (JAS), with 8,932 and 351 standards, respectively, at the end of May 2002.
Japan continues to bring its standards into line wi th their international counterparts.  About 90% of
JIS were aligned with international standards as at 31 March 2002, compared with about 50% in
FY1997.  The MAFF is currently in the process of reviewing JAS.
Table III.3
Major standards and technical regulations in Japan, May 2002
Number of
standards or
regulationsPercentage
corresponding
to international
standardsaPercentage
equivalent to
international
standardsPercentage
acceptance
of overseas
certificationbPercentage
acceptance
of overseas
test datab
A.  Mandatory technical regulations
Pharmaceuticals Affairs Law 2,602 .. .. .. ..
Food Sanitation Law 505 .. .. .. ..
Electrical Appliance and Materials Safety
Law452 .. .. .. ..
Consumer Product Safety Law 5 0 0 0 ..
High Pressure Gas Safety Law 2 .. .. .. 100
Building Standard Lawc.. .. .. .. ..
Safety Regulations for Road Vehicles 277 15 0 18 20
Law concerning the Safety Assurance and
Quality Improvement of Feedd153 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100
Law concerning Examination and
Regulation of Chemical Substances and
Regulation of their Manufacture5. .. . . . 1 0 0
Telecommunications Business Law .. .. .. .. ..
Radio Lawe.. .. .. .. ..
Fertilizer Control Law 141 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100
B.  Voluntary standards
Japan Industrial Standards (JIS) 8,932 44 90 .. ..
Japan Agricultural Standards (JAS) 351 38f18f0.6 n.a.
Total .. .. .. .. ..
.. Not available.
n.a. Not applicable.
a Defined as "primary aspects sharing a common scope".
b Where applicable.
c Building Act Code.
d As of December 2001.e According to the authorities, the number of mandatory technical regulations is not available because the scope and definition of
mandatory technical regulations is ambiguous;  the technical conditions of radio stations in Japan generally comply with ITU-R
Recommendations and Radio Regulations, and international harmonization is given consideration.  Regarding the system for thecertification of radio equipment, the Radio Law was amended to establish the system for accepting foreign test results and
foreign certification (promulgated in 1998 and went into effect in 1999).
f As of October 1998.  Only JAS for processed foods.
Source: Information provided by the Japanese authorities.
46. As of 31 March 2002, about 13,000 domestic and more than 400 foreign factories, in
22 countries, had received approval to affix JIS marks.  The JIS marking system covers aboutWT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 40
630 products.  The authorities maintain that domestic and foreign factories are treated in the same
manner with regard to approval of affixing JIS marks.  As of 1 May 2002, six Japanese organizations
were accredited as JIS mark certification bodies, and two foreign bodies were accredited, by METI.
For the JAS system, a new grading system for foreign products was introduced in June 2000 in
accordance with the 1999 amendment to the JAS Law.  Foreign producers or manufactures certified
by Registered Certification Organizations (RCOs) or Registered Foreign Certification Organizations
(RFCOs) can conduct their own grading and append the JAS symbols to their products.46  Only
products graded under the JAS system may affix JAS symbols.
Mandatory technical regulations
47. In 2001, approximately 20% of all JIS were quoted in Japanese Laws and
government/ministerial ordinances as mandatory technical regulations.  Changes in technicalregulations since 2000 include the introduction of mandatory labelling requirements concerning place
of origin of eight food items
47, and of genetically modified food.  Currently, seven inspection bodies,
two foreign, are designated by METI for testing based on the standards and certification systems
listed in Table III.3 under the jurisdiction of METI.
Bilateral, regional, and multilateral arrangements48. A Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between Japan and the European Community was
signed on 4 April 2001 and entered into force on 1 January 2002.  The agreement, which is Japan's
first MRA with its trading partners, applies to products subject to conformity assessment procedures
set out in the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions detailed in four sectoral annexes to the
agreement;  it covers telecommunications terminal equipment and radio equipment, electrical
products, good laboratory practice (GLP) for chem icals, and good manufacturing practice (GMP) for
medicinal products.
49. The agreement between Japan and the Republic of Singapore for a New-Age Economic
Partnership (JSEPA), signed on 13 January 2000, incl udes provisions concerning mutual recognition
of the results of conformity assessment procedures.  It covers telecommunications terminal equipment
and radio equipment, and electrical products specified in two sectoral annexes to the agreement.
Japan has been holding consultations with the United States in regard to MRAs on medical devices,pharmaceutical products, and building standards.
(b) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
50. Since Japan's previous Trade Policy Review, regulations under the Food Sanitation Law have
been revised.  The revision, which was implemented in April 2001, introduced specifications and
standards for genetically modified foods, and prohibited their importation unless approved under theLaw.
                                                     
46 Since 2000, 12 RFCOs in four countries have been designated by the Minister of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries.
47 Some food and food products, other than imported ones, were made subject to mandatory labelling of
place of origin of their main ingredient under the standards for labelling of quality in 2000 and 2001:  ume-boshi(pickled and dried Japanese plum) and pickled scallion;  salted and dried horse mackerel and mackerel;  saltedmackerel;  unagi-kabayaki (broiled split eel) and unagi-shirayaki (eel broiled without sweetened soy sauce or
seasoning);  dried wakame;  salted wakame;  pickled agricultural products other than ume-boshi and pickled
scallion;  and katsuo-kezuribushi (shavings of dried bonito).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 41
51. On 1 April 2001, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) established a "food
with health claims" category, consisting of two subcategories:  food for specified health use;  and food
with nutrient function claims.  The former require s individual permission or approval by the MHLW
per product to be on the market, while the latter are only required to meet the established standards
and labeling rules.48
52. To avoid the introduction of injurious pests due to insufficient import quarantine inspection,
through workloads in excess of inspection capacity, Japan introduced in April 2001 indices of
maximum inspection capacity per day.49 The authorities maintain that the indices are intended as a
guideline for proper and consistent inspections at each regional Plant Protection Station;  they are not
intended to be used to limit the number of inspections or to conduct the import inspections too rigidly.
53. On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with Japan with respect to
restrictions on Japan's imports of apples.50  In a previous dispute between Japan and the United States
on import quarantine measures on eight products, including apples, the two countries reached
agreement on the new quarantine methodologies in August 2001.51
54. Other changes in Japan's SPS measures since its previous Trade Policy Review include the
entry into force of:  the Enforcement Ordinance of the Law for Prevention of Infectious Diseases andon Medical Service and the amendment of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Rabies Prevention Law
on 1 April 1999
52;  the amendment of the Regulations for the Enforcement of the Domestic Animal
Infectious Disease Control Law on December 200053;  the amendment of the animal quarantine
                                                     
48 Food for specified health use is to contain func tional ingredients that can have positive effects on
human physiological functions;  it is intended to be cons umed for special health uses such as controlling blood
pressure or blood cholesterol.  To qualify as food for specified health use, it requires examination by the Council
of Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation in light of the safety as food, the stability of the functionalingredients in the food, the clinical efficacy and then permitted or – if labelled overseas – approved by theMHLW.  Food with nutrient function claims is intended to be consumed to supply or complement nutrients thatare liable to lack in the modern diet.  Labelling standards have been set for 12 kinds of vitamins and two kindsof minerals, including function claims and upper/lower limits of content per (recommended) daily usage.  This
type of food may be manufactured and distributed without any permission or notification, provided that it
complies with the standards.  The MHLW plans to revise the standards by adding other nutrients in foods withnutrient function claims.
49 The average number of inspections carried out in the two busiest months in each of the preceding
three years for each Plant Protection Station.
50 WTO document WT/DS245/1, 6 March 2002.
51 WTO document WT/DS76/12, 30 August 2001.
52 These measures establish import quarantine procedures for non-human primates, and specify
countries and regions from which their import to Japan is prohibited;  they also establish import and exportquarantine procedures for cat, racoon, fox and skunk from all countries and areas.  See WTO documents
G/SPS/N/JPN/45 and 46, 29 July 1999 and 30 July 1999.
53 Under the amendment, straw and forage originating in countries and areas specified in Article 43 of
the Regulation for Enforcement of the Domestic Animal  Infectious Disease Control Law are prescribed as
prohibited items, with a view to preventing the introduction of domestic animal infectious diseases into Japan.See also WTO document G/SPS/N/JPN/59,  20 November 2000.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 42
measures for BSE on 1 January 2001, 1 April 2001, and 11 June 200154;  and the amendment of the
animal quarantine measures for BSE on 4 October 2001.55
(c) Labelling and packaging requirements
55. To label food as "organic" accreditation is needed from an authorized accreditation body that
the food meets certain JAS requirements.  Only accredited food may carry an Organic-JAS Mark
label.56  Mandatory labelling regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was applied to
soybeans, corn, potatoes, rapeseed, cotton seed, and some processed foods mainly made of soybeans
or corn according to the Genetically Modified Food Labelling Standard.  The Ministry of Health and
Welfare does not permit the importation of GMOs that do not meet its safety requirements.  Labelling
requirements for rice were also reinforced by the JAS law. The Agricultural Products Inspection Law
requires mandatory inspections of rice, wheat, and barley as well as soybean. Apart from mandatorylabelling requirements, the JFTC's guideline on misleading representations may lead to the
establishment of de facto  standards.
57
(3) IMPORT AND INWARD INVESTMENT PROMOTION MEASURES
(i) Import promotion
56. Current import promotion measures include import activities by the Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO) and a financing programme.  Changes in Japan's import promotion measures
since its previous Trade Policy Review include the abolition, at the end of March 2002, of the Tax
Incentive for Manufactured Imports, which comprised a tax credit, and the Financing Program for
Manufactured Imports and Loans to Facilitate Imports.  The provision of low-interest loans under the
Financing Program for Import Facilities Enhancement and that under Japan's FDI promotion
programme were integrated in FY2000.  In August 2000, JETRO established a Trade Tie-up
Promotion Program (TTPP), which is intended to al low Japanese and foreign corporations to register
and view business information free of charge, with  a view to promoting trade, investment, and
technological exchange.
(ii) Investment regulation and promotion measures
57. In FY2000, foreign affiliated firms accounted for about 1.8% of total sales in Japan, 0.7% of
employment, 10.1% of total exports, and 13.6% of total imports.58  The value of inward direct
investment in Japan increased substantially, by 30% in FY2000, amounting to  ¥3.1 trillion, which is
                                                     
54 The amendment involves urgent suspension of the importation of cattle meat and related items
through enforcement of import inspection and other measures with a view to protecting Japan from the possible
introduction of BSE.  See also WTO documents G/SP S/N/JPN/62, 66, and 72, 17 January 2001, 20 April 2001,
and 5 October 2001.
55 In the light of the outbreak of BSE in Japan, and the possibility that feed containing processed animal
proteins (meat and bone meal etc. ) may be the cause of BSE, the amendment suspended the use of processed
animal proteins, and therefore, provisional suspension of imports of processed animal proteins.  See also WTO
document G/SPS/N/JPN/71, 5 October 2001.
56 Seventeen countries' standards and labelling for organic agricultural products are currently regarded
equivalent to the JAS.  These are:  Australia, Austri a, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the UnitedStates.
57 For example, the JFTC established a guideline on the labelling of abyssal water in 2001.
58 Based on METI (2001) (the latest available data).Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 43
about three fifths of Japan's outward FDI (compa red with one tenth in FY1997).  In FY2001, inward
FDI in Japan declined by 30%, to ¥2.2 trillion.  Nonetheless, inward FDI remains relatively low.59
(a) Regulatory regime and investment promotion measures
58. Since Japan's previous Trade Policy Review, there has been no change in the regulatory
regime concerning inward and outward FDI, except for a relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions
on the NTT holding company to less than one third (from 20% on 30 November 2001).60  The
framework of Japan's promotion measures for inward FDI has remained generally the same since its
previous Trade Policy Review.
(b) Investment promotion measures
59. The provisions of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) also regulate investment policy.  Since
its previous Trade Policy Review, Japan has concluded BITs with Mongolia and Pakistan (both in2002), bringing the total of nine.
61
(iii) Foreign access zones (FAZs)
60. Foreign access zones (FAZs) are a major component of Japan's import and investment
promotion schemes, and are intended to serve as centralized locations for import-related operations, as
well as to streamline the internal distribution of imported cargos.62  In 2000, Japan's imports and
exports through FAZs accounted for 32% and 37% of its total imports and exports.  The Government
approved a new FAZ in Ibaraki Prefecture in Augu st 2000, and approved the expansion of an existing
FAZ in April 2001.  By the end of March 2002, Japan had approved a total of 22 FAZs.63
(4) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS
(i) Export taxes, charges, and levies
61. Japan has no export taxes or levies.
(ii) Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing
62. Export controls implemented in Japan are defined in the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade
Law and the Export Control Order.  Exports requiring permission from the Minister of Economy,
Trade and Industry include:  certain seeds, endangered animals and plants specified in international
treaties;  narcotics;  designated art works;  false currencies;  and other products involving criminal
                                                     
59 According to UNCTAD (2001), FDI inflows into  Japan in 2000 amounted to US$8.2 billion, while
those into the United States and the European Unio n were US$281.1 billion and US$617.3 billion, respectively.
60 See WTO (2001), Chapter III(3)(iii) for details of Japan's FDI-related regulatory regime.
61 Before 2001, Japan had concluded BITs with Ba ngladesh;  China;  Egypt;  Hong Kong, China;
Russia;  Sri Lanka;  and Turkey.
62 FAZs are organized by "third-sector" companies se t up with public and private funds to provide
facilities for distribution, processing, wholesale, busin ess support, exhibitions, and conventions.  FAZs are also
intended to facilitate customs clearance of imports by, for example, applying simplified bonded warehouseprocedures. Companies located in FAZs may benefit fr om incentives including tax breaks and low-interest
loans.
63 See WTO (2001), Table AIII.11.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 44
offences in Japan.  Export controls are maintained to ensure national security and public safety and to
ensure adequate domestic supplies of certain agricultural and other primary products.64
63. Changes in Japan's export controls since its previous Review concern the introduction in
December 2000 of a licensing requirement for the export of virtually all goods and technologies that
are related to weapons of mass destruction, and the abolition of the export approval requirement on
petroleum and petroleum products.
(a) Voluntary export restraints
64. In response to a surge in imports of certain agricultural products, members of the Japan Seed
Trade Association decided in 2001 to voluntarily restrain exports of seeds used for Japanese trading
corporations' "development and export" schemes;  th ese corporations have been promoting cultivation
abroad of agricultural products suited to Japanese consumers' tastes by bringing in seeds from Japan.65
As a result, Japan's exports of Welsh onion seeds decreased substantially.66
(b) Export cartels
65. There are no authorized export cartels in Japan.  However, 22 types of cartel are exempted
from general prohibition of cartels under Japan's Anti-Monopoly Act (section (5)(vii)).
(iii) Export promotion schemes
(a) Subsidies, tax concessions, export finance, insurance, and guarantees
66. The authorities indicate that Japan has no subsidy or tax concession schemes to promote its
exports.67  In April 2001, Nippon Export and Investment Insurance was established as an independent
administrative institute to provide export credit insura nce, which previously had been provided by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.  These credits apparently accord with the OECD guidelines
on export credits.
(b) Other export promotion schemes
67. The Government has provided little funding for export promotion and marketing assistance,
which were handled by the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) until the mid 1980s.  JETRO
now focuses mainly on inward-investment promotion schemes.  Export promotion schemes by
JETRO mainly include the provision of information, market and company studies, and support for
participation at international trade fairs.
                                                     
64 Article 48 of the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law.  The Article also stipulates that the
Minister of International Trade and Industry may impose on exporters the obligation to obtain export approvalfor the purpose of maintaining the balance of payments as well as to ensure sound development of external trade
and the national economy.   Article 51 of the Law also empowers the Minister to stop shipments, within a limit
of one month, for particular goods or destinations.
65 See, for example, Kyoto Shimbun, 30 May 2001 [Online].  Available at:  http:// www.kyoto-
np.co.jp/kp/enterprise/news/0105/30/15.htm/.
66 See Japan Agricultural Communications news [Online].  Available at: http://www.jacom.or.jp/
news01/0106/502.htm/.
67 WTO document G/SCM/N/60/JPN and its Suppl.1, 20 October 2000 and 16 January 2001, contain
Japan's latest notification concerning subsidies and countervailing measures.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 45
(5) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE
(i) Taxation and tax-related assistance
68. A consumption tax (value-added tax) of 5% is levied on goods and services transactions in
Japan.68  Revenues from this and other indirect taxes, including excise taxes applied mainly to liquor,
tobacco, gasoline, and automobiles, accounted for 41.6% of total central government tax revenue in
FY2002 Budget (40.7% in FY1998)69;  revenue from personal income tax and corporate income tax
accounted for 32.4% and 22.9% (33.2% and 22.3% FY1998), respectively. The top personal income
tax rate was 50% and the corporate tax rate (including local taxes) 40.87% in FY2001, both of which
were allegedly high by European and East-Asian standards.70 The Government plans to introduce a
consolidated corporate tax system in FY2002.
(a) Tax incentives
69. In order to achieve various policy objectives, including investment in certain equipment to
address environmental concerns and stimulate demand, Japan has a complex system of tax breaks,
which are described in the Special Taxation Measures Law;  this has been amended annually.  The
latest estimates of tax revenues forgone as a result of these and other tax measures were
¥1,327 million.
(b) Bilateral tax treaties
70. No new tax treaties have been signed by Japan since its previous Review.71
(ii) Subsidies and other financial assistance
71. Energy and mining, agriculture, research, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)
have accounted for the majority of the subsidies notified by Japan since 1998 (Table AIII.4).72
(iii) State-owned companies and privatization
72. The State retains a stake in major companies in  several sectors through which it could directly
affect production and trade.73  The Government adopted the Reorganization and Rationalization Plan
                                                     
68 The 5% consists of the national consumption tax (4%) and a local consumption tax (1%).  Exempted
transactions include the sale and loan of land, rent for re sidential buildings, the sale of securities, fees paid for
public services, interest received, foreign exchange bu sinesses, medical care, welfare and certain educational
services, and school textbooks.
69 The consumption tax accounted for nearly half of the indirect tax revenue.
70 Keidanren's report issued on 29 February 2002 mentioned that despite a recent decline in Japan's
corporate tax rate, it still remained high compared with European and neighbouring Asian countries, andrequested that the current system of corporate tax be reviewed.
71 As of February 2002, Japan maintains tax treaties with Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh,
Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji , Finland, France,Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz, Luxemburg,Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland,Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Afri ca, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan,
Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, and
Zambia.
72 WTO document G/SCM/N/38/JPN/Suppl.1, 23 September 1998.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 46
for Special Public Institutions, on 19 December 2001, with a view to abolishing or privatizing
163 public corporations in activities such as highways, housing loans, urban development and
petroleum development.74  Two banks that had been temporarily nationalized in 1998 were re-
privatized in 2000.
(iv) Trade-related investment measures
73. Japan has not notified any measures under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment
Measures (TRIMs).
(v) Trade-related intellectual property rights
(a) Scope of IPRs and examination procedures
74. Recent changes in Japan regarding industrial property rights include:  the expansion of
accelerated examination for patent application and appeals in July 2000, to allow preferentialtreatment in the examination process for applications meeting certain conditions
75;  revision of patent
examination guidelines in December 2000, to accept computer programs and business models as
inventions;  and revision of the Design Examination Standards with a view to strengthening protection
for creative designs.
75. With regard to copyrights, the Law on Management Business of Copyright entered into force
in October 2001;  the law introduced a registration system for those who wish to engage in copyright
and neighbouring rights management, and enabled any persons to operate a management business by
registration.76  The Unfair Competition Prevention Law was amended in 2001 to expand protection to
domain names77;  Japan also established alternative dispute resolution regimes for disputes on domain
names.
76. The average "first action" period for patents increased from 19 months in 1998 to 21 months
in 2000.
                                                                                                                                                                    
73 Major companies in which the State retains a stake include Japan Tobacco Inc. (JT), Electric Power
Development Co. Ltd., Kansai International Airport Company Ltd., Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Corporation (NTT), Central Japan International Airport Co mpany, Ltd., Japan Railway (JR) East, JR Central, JR
West JR Hokkaido, JR Shikoku, JR Kyushu, and JR Freight.
74 http://www.gyoukaku.go.jp/about/index.html.
75 The conditions include cases where:  an applicant, an appellant or a person who has been granted a
working licence has exploited the invention;  an invention that has been filed not only with the Japan PatentOffice but also with other offices;  an applicant or an a ppellant is a university, a junior college, a public research
institute or an approved or authorized TLO;  an applicant or an appellant is an SME or an individual, or a person
who is not an appellant (third party) has exploited the invention as a business after the publication ofunexamined application of the appeal/trial case before an appeal/trial decision has been made.
76 Thus, the exclusive status of the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers
(JASRAC) on the management of copyrights related to music has been abolished.  By the end of January 2002,
two management business operators in the field of music, in addition to JASRAC, were registered under the
law.
77 The law provides a definition of unfair competition and the remedies of injunction and compensation
for loss or injury caused by the unfair competition.  The law added as a new type of unfair competition the act ofacquiring or possessing a right to use, or using a domain name that is identical or similar to another person'sindication of goods or other indication, such as a name closely related to a person's business, trade name and
trade mark, with the intent to acquire an unfair benefit or to cause injury to another person.  The law entered into
force on 25 December 2001.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 47
(b) International harmonization and cooperation
77. Japan has continued to promote international harmonization of application and examination
procedures related to IPRs.  For example, Japan participated in the first Trademark Trilateral Meeting
held in May 2001;  the meeting was aimed at planning further mutual understanding and cooperation
in the field of trademarks.78  Japan has also participated in the discussions in the Standing Committee
on the Law of Patents, regarding the Patent Law Treaty. 79
(c) Enforcement
78. Statistics detailing Japan's efforts to combat violations of intellectual property rights at the
border are provided in Table III.4.80  Infringement of IPRs, such as patents, exclusive licences, or
trade marks or the use of false marking may result in either imprisonment or a fine.81
Table III.4
Suspension of imports likely to infringe intellectual property rights, 1995-01
Category Main items 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
(A)  Products concerned (1,000 units)
Shoes Sports shoes (tennis shoes,
sneakers)0.2 12 7 0.5 49 0.1 8
Bags Handbags, purses 309 161 148 37 54 44 84
Clothing T-shirts, sweatshirts, raincoats,
scarfs290 359 861 476 658 414 135
S p o r t s  e q u i p m e n t G o l f  e q u i p m e n t ,  s k i  e q u i p m e n t804 0 . 9000
Watches Wristwatches, pocket watches 44 3 76 226 32 52 48
Smoking equipment Lighters 8 6 5 0 32 0.1 2
Toys Stuffed animals, mini-cars 122 10 0.5 11 40 274 23
Others Household goods, key holders,
cosmetics372 366 492 255 129 315 709
Total 1,153 917 1,594 1,006 994 1,099 1,009
(No. of cases) (1,550) (3,996) (2,136) (1,689) (1,972) (1,873) (3,685)
Table III.4 (cont'd)
                                                     
78 The main topics discussed include:  Japan's ex perience regarding accession to the Madrid Protocol
and the efforts of the United States and the European  Union toward accession;  ex amination processing burden
and quality control, office work regarding user relations ;  the status of and ideas regarding mechanization of
examination and trade mark applications;  and anti-counterfeiting programmes.
79 The JPO authorities have also continued to mainta in cooperative bilateral relations with U.S. and
European patent authorities to solve common problems.  Major programmes in this regard include:  acomparative study of patent examination practices in th e field of advanced technologies;  examiner exchanges;
the development of the Trilateral Network for data exchange concerning administrative and technical patent
data;  and the establishment of a trilateral website.
80 Details of Japan's judicial measures regarding IPR enforcement are provided in WTO document
IP/N/P/JPN/1, 18 February 1997.
81 The penalty for infringement of patent, exclusive licensing, or trade mark rights is either
imprisonment not exceeding five years or fines not exceeding ¥5 million;  infringement by corporations of these
rights results in fines not exceeding ¥150 million.  False marking is penalized either by imprisonment not
exceeding three years or fines not exceeding ¥3 million;  penalties against false marking by corporations result
in fines not exceeding ¥100 million.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 48
Category Main items 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
(B)  Types of violation (Number of cases)
P a t e n t  r i g h t s 9410021
U t i l i t y  r i g h t s 2 9 2 253100
Design rights 194 107 104 58 32 15 14
Trade mark rights 1,114 3,240 1,675 1,437 1,719 6,478 2,727
Copyright 73 113 63 22 65 108 76
Total 1,419 3,486 1,848 1,520 1,807 1,603 2,818
Note: Cases involving hand baggage and unaccompanied baggage are excluded.
Each violation is counted for cases violating more than one intellectual property right.
Source: Information provided by the Japanese authorities.
(vi) Regulatory reform
79. Since its previous Trade Policy Review, Japan has continued to pursue initiatives to reform its
regulatory system, mainly through the Three-Year Program for Promoting Regulatory Reform
(TPPRR), adopted on 30 March 2001 and revised on 29 March 2002.  The TPPRR, as revised, listed
964 measures, including 788 that had already been implemented or partially implemented in FY2001.
The revision was conducted in the light of opinions and requests from domestic and foreign entities,
as well as opinions of the Council for Regulatory Reform.  The direction of reform contained in the
TPPRR is largely the same as that of the TYPPD.  In particular, it envisages the creation of a free andfair socio-economic system fully open to the international community, and a general shift from
ex ante regulatory-type administration to ex post facto  monitoring of compliance, streamlining
regulations, assuring transparency in the procedure of setting up regulations.
80. The main sectors covered in the TPPRR include legal affairs, financial services, education,
medical services, medical care and welfare services , employment and labour, agriculture, distribution,
energy, housing and public works, transport, and explosives and combustibles.  It also contains
measures related to information technology, environment, competition policy, and standards and
certification.  The authorities state that the TPPRR focuses particularly on sectors that have been more
shielded from competition, such as medical services and education.
(vii) Competition policy
(a) Recent developments
81. Despite revisions to the TPPRR, the framework of Japan's competition policy has remained
broadly unchanged since its previous Trade Policy Review.  In international fora, Japan is an active
participant in the WTO Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy,
and in OECD committees and working groups established to increase cooperation in competitionpolicy.  In June 2002, Japan and the European Union initialed the draft text of the Agreement between
the Government of Japan and the European Communities Concerning Cooperation on
Anti-competitive Activities.
82. As part of a comprehensive administrative reform on 1 January 2001, the JFTC became a part
of the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications, which also
includes regulators of telecommunications services.  The Cabinet decided on 26 June 2001 to consider
transferring the JFTC to an appropriate neutral organization and independent from regulatory
authorities, but no decision has yet been reached in this regard.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 49
(b) Exemptions from the AMA prohibition of cartels
83. The Anti-Monopoly Act contains provisions exempting the enforcement of intellectual
property rights, activities of cooperatives, and resale price maintenance of copyrighted work (see next
section).  In addition, provisions authorizing certain cartels are incorporated into other laws, including
the Insurance Business Law and the Export-import Trading Law.82  The number of exemptions has
remained unchanged since 2000;  as of May 2002, 22 systems under 16 laws are exempt from theAMA prohibition of cartels.
(c) Resale price maintenance system
84. A JFTC study group released its conclusion, on 23 March 2001, that it is not appropriate to
abolish, for the time being, the current resale price maintenance system applied to books and
magazines, newspapers, music CDs, music cassettes and records.  While the JFTC considers that theresale price maintenance system (RPM system ) should be abolished from the viewpoint of
competition policy, according to the authorities, a national consensus has not been reached in this
regard owing to fears that abolition of the RPM system might adversely affect cultural or public
aspects of the copyrighted works.
(d) Holding companies, and mergers and acquisitions (M&As)
85. Since the 1997 amendment to the Anti-Monopoly Act to allow holding companies that are not
deemed to constitute an "excessive concentration of economic power", 12 such companies have
reported to the JFTC.  In 2000, the Anti-Monopoly Act was amended, concerning M&As, to prohibit
division of a company if it may be deemed to substa ntially restrain competition in any particular field
of trade (for example, by integration of several parts that have been separated from various
companies).  The Act was also amended in 2001 to reflect changes in the definition of parent-
subsidiary relationship under the Commercial Law.  Under the amended Act, the relationship isdefined on the basis of the total voting rights of all stockholders, as opposed to the total outstanding
stock of the issuing company.
(e) Bilateral arrangement
86. In June 2002, the Government of Japan completed negotiations with the European
Commission for the Agreement concerning Cooperation on Anti-competitive Activities.  Thisagreement is to provide for notification with re spect to enforcement activities, and enforcement
cooperation and coordination.  The Japan–Singapor e Economic Partnership Agreement, signed in
January 2002, contains provisions concerning coope ration in the field of competition, such as
notification and exchange of information concerning competition policies.
(f) Enforcement
87. The AMA provides three types of measures to penalize and thereby deter violations of the
Act:  administrative measures, such as mandatory surcharges, fines, and injunctions on price cartels;
criminal penalties;  and private damages actions.  Administrative penalties are the main sanction;
however, questions have been raised whether mandatory charges or administrative fines (imposed for
non-compliance with JFTC orders or court injunctions) constitute effective deterrents to AMAviolations.
83  The surcharge system is such that potential violators can calculate the surcharge before
                                                     
82 See WTO (2001), Table III.14.
83 Fry (2001).WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 50
they even engage in anti-competitive practices and in clude this cost in calculations to determine the
price or quantity the cartel should set84;  thus, the surcharge may be viewed merely as a cost of doing
business.  The authorities maintain, however, that the cost of violating AMA has become heavier;
since 1991, the amount of the surcharge has quadrupled, and the number of cases where violators
object to the surcharge decision has been increasing.  Although criminal sanctions could be a useful
deterrent to AMA violations, in conjunction with surcharges, their use is too infrequent to beeffective.
85  During the past few years, two cases involved criminal sanctions.  Likewise, a relatively
small number of Japan's anti-trust suits have been brought in the form of private actions.86  It would
appear that Japan's courts lack "contempt powers", or a comparable substitute, that could ensure
compliance with JFTC's  cease and desist orders.87
88. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the Government has made efforts to increase the JFTC's
budget and staff, thereby facilitating greater inve stigation of AMA violations;  budgetary allocations
were increased by about 2% in FY2002, and the number of investigation-department personnel has
risen, from 551 in FY1999 to 571 in FY2001.  Of th e cases investigated in FY2001, 38 resulted in
legal measures.  Of these 38 cases, 33 were concerned with bid-rigging in public procurement of
goods and services (Table III.5).
89. Under Section 8-4 of the AMA concerning measures against a monopolistic situation, the
JFTC monitors highly oligopolistic markets, and may order measures to restore competition in the
event of "undesirable market performance".88   In 2001, 25 industries were being monitored by the
JFTC to assess the presence of a monopolistic situation (Table AIII.5).
(g) Distribution measures
90. There has been no change in the legal framework pertaining to the distribution sector,
including on the opening and expansion of large-scale retail stores.  Since the entry into force inJune 2000 of the Law Concerning Measures by Large-Scale Retail Stores for the Preservation of the
Living Environment, about 700 entities have notified their intention to establish large-scale retail
stores, in accordance with the law.
89
                                                     
84 See, for example, Iyori and Uesugi (1994).
85 Criminal sanctions are seemingly difficult to implement owing to institutional limitations on the
JFTC.  First, as some JFTC staff are appointees chosen from other government agencies, they may be subject topolitical pressure with regard to the filing of criminal charges.  Second, there are only a small number of
prosecutors to manage all types of litigation.  Third, Japan's justice system is based on a corrective rather than
punitive philosophy;  violators are given the opportunity to avoid criminal charges by correcting their actionsand compensating victims (Fry, 2001).
86 According to the authorities, 52 cases of private actions are currently filed.
87 Fry (2001).
88 A monopolistic situation is defined as where the market share of a single enterprise is no less than
50% (or 75% for two enterprises combined in a particular field of business), and where the annual total outputof the business is not less than ¥100 billion;  new entry into the market is conspicuously difficult and for aconsiderable period of time,  (a) the price structure in the market is rigid or inflexible, and (b) profit orexpenditure (e.g. on advertizing and marketing) is far in excess of standard levels in the industry.  "Undesirablemarket performance" includes such factors as barriers to  entry, extraordinary price increases or extremely high
profit rates.
89 As at April 2002.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 51
Table III.5
Enforcement statistics related to competition policy, 1997-01
Fiscal year
Details1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a
(A)  Cases in which legal measures were taken against acts
prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Act
Number of legal measures 31 27 27 18 38
Private monopoly 3 1 1 0 0
C a r t e l s 1 91 92 01 23 6
P r i c e  c a r t e l s 31113
Collusive tendering 16 17 18 10 33
Other types of cartelsb01110
Unfair trading practices 9 6 3 6 2
O t h e r s 01300
(B)  Surcharge payment orders (¥ billion)
Payment order
N u m b e r  o f  c a s e s 1 61 62 01 61 1
Number of enterprise operators 369 576 335 719 183
Surcharge amount 2.83 3.15 5.46 8.52 1.97
Decision to initiate hearings 1 2 1 2 3
(C)  Recently processed investigation cases
Cases investigated
Carry-over from the previous fiscal year 70 45 50 39 34
New cases begun during the current fiscal year 155 125 82 74 78
Total 225 170 132 113 112
Processed cases
Legal measures
Recommendation 30 27 26 15 37
(Decision to commence hearing)c( 4 )( 3 )( 6 )( 0 )( 3 )
Surcharge payment orderd10101
Sub-total 31 27 27 18 38
Others
Warnings 19 17 20 17 11
Cautions 123 62 36 36 23
Discontinuede71 41 0 3 6
Sub-total 149 93 66 56 40
Total 180 120 93 74 78
Carry-over to the next fiscal year 45 50 39 34 ..
Criminal accusations 01  ( 1 )1  ( 1 ) 0 0
.. Not available.
a Data for FY 2001 are from April to December 2001.
b Other types of cartels include restrictions on sales volume and restrictions on business clients.
c Figures in ( ) are cases in which the decision to commence hearing procedures has been made.
d Cases in which surcharge payment orders were given without a recommendation.e Cases that have been discontinued due to lack of evidence of wrong-doing.
Source: Information provided by the Japanese authorities.WT/TPR/S/107 Trade Policy Review
Page 52
(viii) Corporate governance
91. A particularly important feature of Japan's economy has been its system of corporate
governance based on cross-shareholdings and long-term relationships among a group of firms or
keiretsu , within which a central role is played in many instances by the main bank in the group.90
Companies within the group are linked by stable cross-shareholdings in the sense that each firm owns
equity in other firms of the group with the result that among them they retain control of each firm inthe group.  Thus, companies in a keiretsu  have tended not to sell their shares to outsiders, and to
support incumbent management.  The main bank usually holds the largest block of equity and is the
major lender to other firms in the group.  Under this "main bank" system, therefore, corporate control
is exercised by banks and the group's firms, which are collectively the largest shareholders.  This
control has tended to be at the expense of minority shareholders.  Japan's legal framework confersrights on shareholders, but these rights may be difficult to exercise in practice, as would seem to be
the initiations of legal action against managers and directors.
91  Consequently, corporate decisions are
largely taken in order to benefit a number of stakeholders, including the lending bank, customers,
suppliers, and other firms in the group, and largely immune from the threat of  hostile takeover.92  It
follows that profit maximization is not necessarily the main objective of the firm.  Reflecting this, theaverage rate of return on equity in Japan during the period 1980-98 was 2.4% compared with 8.9% in
the United States.
93
92. Empirical studies suggest that this system contributed to Japan's rapid economic growth
during the two decades following post-war reconstruction period.  But with the bursting of the bubble
economy in the early 1990s, the resulting bad loan problem faced by Japan's banking sector and the
related excess capacity in the corporate sector has cast doubt on the effectiveness of banks in
monitoring companies, including those that are not members of a keiretsu .
93. A growing awareness that ineffective corporate governance has contributed to excessive use
of capital and labour in the corporate sector has prompted the government to implement a number of
policy measures to reduce excess capacity under the Law on Special Measures for Industrial
Revitalization;  they include, facilitating debt-equity swaps and tax incentives.  There have also been
some significant changes in the regulatory framew ork and business practices that are conducive to the
establishment of more effective corporate governance.94
94. Regulatory changes passed in 1999 have facilitated the implementation of performance-based
(rather than purely seniority-based) compensation by easing and extending the use of stock options.
Partly reflecting this change, the number of companies using stock options grew from 49 in 1997 to
980 (i.e. about 30% of all listed companies).95  More recently, a comprehensive revision of the
Commercial Code was enacted in 2002 to provide a greater role for external directors.96  In addition, a
number of other official initiatives may make it more difficult for firms in a  keiretsu  to maintain their
                                                     
90 Chan-Lau (2001).
91 Shishido (1999).
92 There were no hostile takeovers among large firms during the 1945-90 period.  See Kester (1991).
93 Gibson (1998).
94 The Japan Business Foundation, a body established in 2002 as a result of the merger of Keidanren
and Japan Federation of Employers' Associations (Nikkeiren), has just decided to review its corporategovernance guidelines for the first time since 1996, following a series of scandals that has undermined publicconfidence in Japanese companies.
95 Nikkei Shimbun,  26 June 2002.
96 See "Japanese Corporate Law – Drastic Changes in 2000-2001 & the Future" [Online].  Available at:
http://www.moj.jo.jp/ENGLISH/CIAB/jcl.pdf.Japan WT/TPR/S/107
Page 53
cross-shareholdings.  These initiatives include significant revisions to Japan's accounting standards to
assure greater transparency by, for example, the introduction of market-value accounting in place of
book-value accounting, for some financial assets on 1 April 2002.97  These accounting changes could
put further pressure on firms to sell poorly performing stocks. Other changes include new mechanisms
for effecting mergers and acquisitions through share swaps and stock transfer schemes, together with
the creation of holding companies (which will be fo stered by more liberal tax rules on consolidation).
The Tokyo Stock Exchange has deregulated the listing process to make it easier for merging
companies to gain access to equity financing.
95. The JFTC regularly conducts surveys of the six major corporate groupings;  the most recent
report was published in May 2001.  This survey found that ties among group members through
capital, personnel, and financing were loosening and that the ratio of stocks of one member of a groupowned by the other members has decreased.   The effect of recent restructuring and mergers and
acquisitions in financial services, on the ties among group members, were found to be ambiguous;  it
would appear that opinions differ on whether th e roles of corporate groups would be weakened or
strengthened.
96. The bribing of Japanese officials is not allowed under the Criminal Code.  With the entry into
force of the National Public Service Ethics Law in 2000, senior officials of the Government must
report to their heads of ministries or agencies any gift or hospitality (whose value is beyond ¥5,000)
from the private sector.  Japan does not allow companies to deduct, for tax purposes, bribes paid to
foreign officials.
                                                     
97 The authorities maintain that Japan's Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) have
become equivalent to the International Accounting Standards (IAS) in most areas, such as consolidated
accounting, financial instrument accounting, and retirement benefit accounting.