WT/DS495/3  
 
21 August 2015  
(15-4266)  Page: 1/8  
  Original: English  
 
 KOREA – IMPORT BANS, AND TESTING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
 FOR RADIONUCLIDES 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHM ENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN 
The following communication, dated 20 August 201 5, from the delegation of Japan to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
  1.  My authorities have instructed me to requ est the establishment of a panel with respect to 
certain measures of the Republic of Korea ("Korea" ), in the form of import bans and additional 
testing and additional certification requirements for radionuclides, that affect the importation of food products from Japan. Japan submits this request pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of 
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), 
Article XXIII:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), and 
Article 11.1 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Agreement "), and 
asks that the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") esta blish a panel with standard terms of reference 
as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.   
2.  On 21 May 2015, pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Ar ticle XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Article 11.1 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures ("SPS Agreement"), Japan requested consultations regarding the Korean import bans and additional testing and additional certificatio n requirements.  That request, dated 21 May 2015, 
was circulated on 1 June 2015 as document WT/DS495/1. 
3.  Japan and Korea held consultations on 24 and 25 June 2015, with a view towards settling the 
dispute.  Unfortunately, the consultations failed to reach a mutually agreed solution.  
I. Background 
4.  Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that occurred subsequent 
to the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011, Japan understands that Korea adopted a 
series of measures that (i) ban the import of certain  food products from some 13 Japanese 
prefectures, and (ii) in the event radionuclides, including cesium 134 or 137 (collectively "cesium") 
or iodine 131, are detected in certain  food products from Japan, impose additional testing and 
additional certification requirements regarding the presence of other radionuclides.
1  Further, 
Japan understands that, in September 2013, Korea (i) extended the scope of its import bans to all 
fishery products caught or landed in 8 Japanese prefectures, and (ii) extended the additional testing and additional certification requirements regarding the presence of radionuclides other than 
cesium and iodine 131 to all food products from Japan that are not subject to import bans, where 
cesium or iodine 131 are detected.  To date, Korea has failed to publish these measures, such that the evidence and information at Japan's disposal is, to a significant extent, limited to that which 
can be gleaned from press releases issued by the relevant Korean agencies and ministries. 
                                               
1 Based on a response from Korea's SPS Enquiry Poin t, dated 26 August 2014, Japan understands that 
the additional radionuclides are:  plutonium 238, plutonium 239, plutonium 240, americium 241, strontium 90, 
ruthenium 106, iodine 129, uranium 235, sulfur 35, cobalt 60, strontium 89, ruthenium 103, cerium 144, iridium 192, hydrogen 3, carbon 14 and technetium 99. WT/DS495/3 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5.  For many months, Japan has engaged in intense efforts to identify and understand Korea's 
measures, and to satisfy Korea's concerns.  Japan has participated in numerous bilateral meetings with Korea to discuss the matter,
2 consistent with the spirit of the SPS Agreement .  In this spirit, 
Japan has repeatedly provided volumes of detailed information to Korea (i) as a part of information 
regularly provided to foreign missions in Japan, and (ii) in response to specific requests received 
from Korea.3 Japan has also repeatedly offered to hold additional meetings between our respective 
technical experts, to further understand and address Korea's concerns. 
6.  Moreover, to enable Japan to demonstrate to Korea the equivalence of Japan's own SPS 
measures to Korea's SPS measures, and because Japan has reason to believe that Korea's SPS measures have the potential to and do constrain export from Japan, and are not based on relevant international standards, guidelines or reco mmendations, on 18 March 2014, Japan requested 
Korea, under Articles 4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement , to provide:  an explanation of the 
objectives and reasons for Korea's SPS measures; an identification of the risks that its measures are intended to address; an indication of the leve l of protection its SPS measures are designed to 
achieve; and, a copy of any risk assessments Korea has undertaken.  On 9 June 2014 and 
12 August 2014, Japan sent further letters reiterating its request.  Although Korea is obliged by Articles 4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement  to have provided all of the requested information, it has 
failed to provide meaningful responses to Japan's request.
4 
7.  In light of Korea's failure to publish its measures, and its failure meaningfully to respond to 
Japan's request under Articles 4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement , Japan is deeply concerned about a 
fundamental lack of transparency concerning the Ko rean SPS measures at issue.  Accordingly, on 
24 June 2014, Japan requested Korea's SPS enquiry point to provide copies of its measures, and 
to respond to basic questions regarding the scope and meaning of those measures.  Pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement , Korea is obliged to provide responses to the 
substantive questions and requests. A response from Korea's SPS enquiry point, dated 
26 August 2014, failed however to provide meanin gful substantive responses to many of Japan's 
questions, and failed altogether to answer other of those questions.   
8.  As a result of these failures, on 13 November 2014, Japan sent a further communication to 
Korea's SPS enquiry point, reiterating those questions from its 24 June 2014 request that remained unanswered, and posing follow-up questions and requests to clarify matters left ambiguous by the Korean enquiry point's 26 Augu st 2014 response.  To date, Japan has not even 
received an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a response, to its enquiry of 
13 November 2014. 
9.  Although, for many months, Korea did not respon d to Japan's repeated offers to hold meetings 
at the level of each side's technical experts, Korea finally agreed to send a group of  technical 
experts and representatives of consumer's association ("the group") to Japan, purportedly as part of an effort to review the Korean measures.  Throughout its visits to Japan, which took place in 
December 2014 and January 2015, Japan provided the group with further information and 
opportunities to visit various sites so as to allow them to develop a first-hand understanding of the current situation.  Moreover, during and following the visits, upon request by Korea, Japan and Korea conducted joint sampling of fishery products and ocean water for comparison of testing 
results.  Results of these joint inspections show that the levels of radionuclides in fishery products 
are significantly below applicable Japanese and Korean thresholds, and that there are no more 
                                               
2 Japan engaged in bilateral meetings with Korea to discuss this matter on 16 September 2013; 
15 January 2014; 30 April 2014 and 18 September 2014, as well as in bilateral meetings in the margin of SPS Committee meetings (15 October 2013; 24 March 2014; 8 July 2014; 15 October 2014 and 25 March 2015).  See further , paragraph 9, below. 
3 For example, in response to questionnaires rece ived from Korea, Japan provided large amounts of 
information to Korea on 28 August 2013; 5 September 2013; 12 September, 2013; 29 January 2014, 9 June 2014, 12 December 2014; 7 January 2015; 8 January 2015; 9 January 2015; 14 January 2015; 29 January 2015; 5 February 2015; 10 February 2015.  In addition, Japan responded to numerous additional requests for information. 
4 In particular, Korea's letters of 4 July 2014 and 15 September 2014 fail to provide: (i) “an explanation 
of the reasons” for the Korean SPS measures, under Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement ; and (ii) an explanation 
of the objectives and rationale of the SPS measures, a clear identification of the risks that its measures are intended to address, and a copy of any risk asse ssments Korea has undertaken and on which these SPS 
measures are based, or a technical justification based on a relevant international standard, guideline or 
recommendation, under Article 4 of the SPS Agreement  and the SPS Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/19/Rev.2). WT/DS495/3 
 
- 3 - 
 
  than trace amounts of radionuclides in ocean water.  Additionally, at Korea's request, Japanese 
technical experts visited Korea on 2 April 2015, to address questions raised by Korean technical experts in relation to the testing results.   
10.  Despite these developments, Korea has not offered any indication of appreciable progress 
toward review and lifting of its measures.  Moreover, Korea continues its failure to provide 
meaningful information to Japan that would allow Japan to understand the operation of and concerns behind Korea's measures, and to address and resolve these concerns. 
II. Measures at issue 
11.  This request for the establishment of a panel concerns two groups of Korean measures.  First, 
the Korean measures covered by this request include the following omissions relating to Korea's 
transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement : 
a. Korea's failure to publish promptly, upon their adoption, the SPS measures listed in 
paragraphs 13 and 14, below, in such a manner as to enable Japan to become 
acquainted with them; 
b. Korea's failure, following Japan's requests of 18 March 2014, 9 June 2014 and 
12 August 2014 under Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement , to provide Japan with "an 
explanation of the reasons for" the SPS measures listed in paragraphs 13 and 14, below; 
c. Korea's failure, following Japan's requests of 18 March 2014, 9 June 2014 and 
12 August 2014 under Article 4 of the SPS Agreement and the SPS Committee's Decision 
on the Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement ,5 to provide Japan with, in 
particular, an explanation of the objectives and rationale of the SPS measures referred 
to in paragraphs 13 and 14, below; a clear identification of the risks that these same SPS measures are intended to address; and, a copy of the risk assessment on which 
these same SPS measures are based, or a technical justification based on a relevant 
international standard, guideline or recommendation, so as to enable Japan to demonstrate to Korea the equivalence of Japan's own SPS measures; and, 
d. Korea's failure, in particular the failure of its SPS enquiry point, to respond to certain of 
Japan's 24 June 2014 questions and requests for documents related to the measures 
listed in paragraphs 13 and 14, below, and its failure to respond to any of Japan's 13 November 2014 reiterations of unanswered  questions and follow-up questions and 
requests related to the measures referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14, below. 
12.  Second, the Korean measures covered by this request also include SPS measures in the form 
of (i) import bans, and (ii) additional testing an d additional certification requirements adopted by 
Korea.  As noted above, these measures suffer a fundamental lack of transparency. And Korea has 
failed to engage meaningfully in bilateral discussions held in the spirit encouraged by the SPS 
Agreement , and has failed to meet its express obligations under the SPS Agreement to provide 
information and documents requested by Japan, including copies of the Korean measures at issue.  
Accordingly, and taking account of the limited extent to which Korea has made available relevant 
information regarding its measures, Japan refers, in paragraphs 13 and 14, below, to Korean measures, as evidenced by and/or reflected in press releases issued by the relevant Korean 
ministries and agencies.     
13.  As noted in point (i) of paragraph 12, the Korean SPS measures covered by this request 
include import bans on certain food from particular regions in Japan, imposed in or after March 
2011, following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.  Japan understands 
that the import bans are evidenced by, and/or are reflected in, inter alia , the following publicly 
available documents: 
a. Press release by the Prime Minister's Secretariat, dated 23 March 2011, "Prime Minister 
Hwang-Shik Kim demands stringent inspection of imported food products"; 
                                               
5 G/SPS/19/Rev.2. WT/DS495/3 
 
- 4 - 
 
  b. Press release by the Korea Food and Drug Administration ("KFDA"), dated 23 March 
2011, "Status of KFDA's response and management measures regarding Japanese nuclear crisis (1)"; 
c. Press release by KFDA, dated 24 March 2011, "Status of KFDA's response and 
management measures regarding Japanese nuclear crisis (2)"; 
d. Press release by the Prime Minister's Secretariat, dated 25 March 2011, "Temporary 
import suspension of foods from regions in Japan contaminated with radioactivity"; 
e. Press release by Ministry of Food, Agricultur e, Forestry and Fisheries ("MIFAFF"), dated 
21 April 2011, "Temporary ban on import of sand lances from Fukushima"; 
f. Press release by KFDA, dated 5 October 2011, "Status of KFDA's response and 
management measures regarding Japan nuclear crisis"; 
g. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 16 April 2012, "T emporary ban on import of  char from 
Fukushima"; 
h. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 20 April 2012, "Temporary ban on import of sea-bass, 
blue drum, flat fish, channel catfish and crucian carp from Ibaraki- ken"; 
i. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 23 April 2012, "Temporary ban on import of white mullet 
and masou salmon from Miyagi- ken"; 
j. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 30 April 2012, "Temporary ban on import of common 
carp and crucian carp from Fukushima- ken"; 
k. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 3 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of cod from 
Miyagi- ken and Iwate- ken"; 
l. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 8 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of Japanese eel 
from Ibaraki- ken, etc."; 
m. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 9 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of panther puffer 
from Miyagi- ken"; 
n. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 15 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of white mullet 
from Iwate- ken"; 
o. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 16 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of char from 
Miyagi- ken"; 
p. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 31 May 2012, "Temporary ban on import of flat fish from 
Miyagi- ken"; 
q. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 4 June 2012, "Temporary ban on import of thornback 
rays from Ibaraki- ken"; 
r. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 21 June 2012, "Temporary ban on import of char from 
Tochigi- ken"; 
s. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 26 June 2012, "Temporary ban on import of 35 fishery 
products including yellowfish from Fukushima-
ken"; 
t. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 29 June 2012, "Temporary ban on import of black sea 
bream from Miyagi- ken"; 
u. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 9 July 2012, "Temporary ban on import of stone flounder 
from Ibaraki- ken"; WT/DS495/3 
 
- 5 - 
 
  v. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 17 July 2012,  "Temporary ban on import of barfin 
flounder, etc. from Fukushima- ken"; 
w. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 24 July 2012, "Temporary ban on import of crucian carp 
from Chiba- ken"; 
x. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 27 July 2012, "Temporary ban on import of starspotted 
dogfish from Fukushima- ken"; 
y. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 6 August 2012, "Temporary ban on import of Japanese 
eel from Fukushima- ken"; 
z. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 13 August 2012, "Temporary ban on import of masou 
salmon from Tochigi- ken"; 
aa. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 28 August 2012, "Temporary ban on import of purple 
puffer from Fukushima- ken"; 
bb. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 29 August 2012,  "Temporary ban on import of cod from 
Aomori- ken"; 
cc. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 26 October 2012, "Temporary ban on import of sea bass 
from Iwate- ken"; 
dd. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 7 November 2012, "Temporary ban on import of black 
sea bream from Iwate- ken"; 
ee. Press release by MIFAFF, dated 13 November 2012, "Temporary ban on import of cod 
from Ibaraki- ken"; 
ff. Press release by the Prime Minister's Office, dated 6 September 2013, "Government 
bans import of all fishery products from 8 ken near Fukushima";  
gg. Press release by the Ministry of Food an d Drug Safety of Korea ("MFDS"), dated 
27 September 2013, "Results of radiation inspection of imports from Japan (Sept. 13 – 
26, 2013)"; and, 
hh. MFDS Notice of Temporary Special Measure fo r Safety for Food Imported from Japan, 
dated 6 September 2013, referred to by Korea in its notification of emergency measures 
to the SPS Committee of 28 October 2013 that has been circulated as WTO document 
G/SPS/N/KOR/454/Add.1 ("G/SPS/N/KOR/454/Add.1").  
Japan further understands that the import bans that are the subject of this request for the 
establishment of a panel implement, and/or were adopted on the basis of, inter alia , the following:  
ii. Korea's Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides, 
including Articles 4, 7, 7-2, 14, 15, 15-2, 17, 21, 22, 57 and 58; 
jj. Korea's Standards and Specifications for Foods (Food Code) as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 1.1 (paragraphs 33 and 34), 2 and 5;  
kk. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 4, 5, 7 and 11; 
ll.
 Korea's Enforcement Regulation of the Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 10 and 12, and Annex 4 thereto; WT/DS495/3 
 
- 6 - 
 
  mm.  Korea's Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 4, 15, 15-2, 26.3, 26-4, 33 and 33-2; 
nn. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act as it relates 
to potential contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 18-5, 26-3 and 26-4; 
oo. Korea's Enforcement Regulation of Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act as it relates 
to potential contamination with radionuclides, including Article 21; 
pp. Korea's Processing Standards and Composition Specifications regarding Livestock 
Products as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides; 
qq. Korea's Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides; 
rr. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act 
as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides; and, 
ss. Korea's Enforcement Regulation of the Agricu ltural and Fishery Product Quality Control 
Act as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides.  
14.  In addition, as noted in point (ii) of paragraph 12, the Korean SPS measures covered by this 
request include additional testing requirements an d additional certification requirements regarding 
the presence of other radionuclides in food from Japan, in the event that radionuclides, including 
cesium or iodine 131, are detected in the food.  These measures were imposed in or after March 2011, following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.  Japan understands that these measures are evidenced by, and/or are reflected in, inter alia , the 
following publicly available documents: 
a. Press release by KFDA, dated 14 April 2011, "Status of KFDA's response and 
management measures regarding Japanese nuclear crisis (5)";  
b. Press release by the Prime Minister's Office, dated 6 September 2013, "Government 
bans import of all fishery products from 8 ken near Fukushima";  
c. Press release by MFDS, dated 27 September 2013, "Results of radiation inspection of 
imports from Japan (Sept. 13 – 26, 2013)";  
d. Press release by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of Korea, dated 21 August 2014, 
"As regards media reports ‘Fish, untrustworthy' (explanation material)";  
e. MFDS Notice of Temporary Special Measure fo r Safety for Food Imported from Japan, 
dated 6 September 2013, referred to by Korea in G/SPS/N/KOR/454/Add.1;  
f. Press releases by Korea's MFDS since 14 April 2011,
6 publishing the results of testing for 
cesium and iodine 131 in food from Japan and other exporting countries, and indicating 
that additional testing and additional certification is required for food from Japan in 
which cesium or iodine 131 are found; and, 
g. Notices issued by Korea since 14 April 2011 to individual importers into Korea or 
exporters from Japan into Korea of food from Japan, requiring additional testing and 
additional certification for radionuclides, in the event that cesium or iodine 131 were detected in such food. 
Japan further understands that the additional te sting requirements and additional certification 
requirements that are the subject of this requ est for the establishment of a panel implement, 
and/or were adopted on the basis of, inter alia , the following: 
                                               
6 Korea's MFDS publishes these press releases at:  http://www.mfds.go.kr/index.do?mid=979 (last 
visited 17 August 2015); and http://www.mfds.go.kr/ index.do?mid=977 (last visited 17 August 2015). WT/DS495/3 
 
- 7 - 
 
  h. Korea's Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides, 
including Articles 4, 7, 7-2, 14, 15, 15-2, 17, 19, 19-4, 21, 22, 24, 57 and 58; 
i. Food Code as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides, including 
Articles 1.1 (paragraphs 33 and 34), 2 and 5; 
j. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 4, 5, 7 and 11; 
k. Korea's Enforcement Regulation of the Food Sanitation Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 10 and 12, and Annex 4 thereto; 
l. Korea's Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act as it relates to potential contamination 
with radionuclides, including Articles 4, 15, 15-2, 33 and 33-2; 
m. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act as it relates 
to potential contamination with radionuclides, including Articles 18-5, 26-3, 26-4 and 65; 
n. Korea's Enforcement Regulation of Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act as it relates 
to potential contamination with radionuclides, including Article 21; 
o. Korea's Processing Standards and Composition Specifications regarding Livestock 
Products as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides; 
p. Korea's Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act as it relates to potential 
contamination with radionuclides; 
q. Korea's Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act 
as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides; and, 
r. Korea's Enforcement Regulation of the Agricu ltural and Fishery Product Quality Control 
Act as it relates to potential contamination with radionuclides.  
15.  Where press releases are cited above as a re flection and/or evidence of the measures at 
issue, it is due to the fundamental lack of tran sparency concerning the Korean SPS measures at 
issue and Korea's failure to observe the tran sparency and publication obligations of the SPS 
Agreement , as explained in, e.g., section I, above.   Thus, where press releases are cited, this 
request for the establishment of a panel also covers:  Korean legal instruments or any other form 
of a measure giving rise to and/or described in the press releases, whether of, inter alia , a 
legislative, regulatory, administrative, executive or judicial nature; and, notices or guidance issued to Korean agencies, Korean importers, or foreign exporters to assist with implementation and/or application of all Korean legal instruments or any other form of measure giving rise to and/or 
described in the press releases.   
16.  In addition, this request also covers in whatever form:  any amendments, supplements, or 
extensions to or of the measures referred to in paragraphs 11-14, above; any measures replacing, 
renewing or implementing the measures referred to in paragraphs 11-14, above; and, any 
measures related to the measures referred to in paragraphs 11-14, above.   
III. Legal basis for the complaint 
17.  Japan considers that the Korean measures identified in section II, above, are inconsistent with 
the SPS Agreement .  In particular, Japan considers that: 
a. Korea's failure, identified in paragraph 11.a, above, to publish promptly, upon their 
a d o p t i o n ,  t h e  S P S  m e a s u r e s  r e f e r r e d  t o  i n  p a r a g r a p h s  1 3  a n d  1 4 ,  a b o v e ,  i n  s u c h  a  
manner as to enable Japan to become acquainted with them, is inconsistent with Article 7 and paragraph 1 Annex B to the SPS Agreement ; 
b. Korea's failure, identified in paragraph 11.b, above, following Japan's requests of 
18 March 2014, 9 June 2014 and 12 August 2014 under Article 5.8 of the SPS WT/DS495/3 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Agreement , to provide Japan with "an explanation of the reasons for" the SPS measures 
referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, is inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the SPS 
Agreement ; 
c. Korea's failure, identified in paragraph 11.c, above, following Japan's requests of 
18 March 2014, 9 June 2014 and 12 August 2014 under Article 4 of the SPS Agreement 
and the SPS Committee's Decision on th e Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS 
Agreement ,7 to provide Japan with, in particular:  an explanation of the objectives and 
rationale of the SPS measures referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14; a clear identification 
of the risks that these same SPS measures are intended to address; and, a copy of the risk assessment on which these same SPS measures are based, or a technical justification based on a relevant international standard, guideline or recommendation, so 
as to enable Japan to demonstrate to Korea the equivalence of Japan's own SPS 
measures, is inconsistent with Article 4 of the SPS Agreement ; and, 
d. Korea's failure, identified in paragraph 11.d, above, to respond fully to Japan's 
24 June 2014 and 13 November 2014 questions and requests for documents related to 
the measures referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, is inconsistent with Article 7 and paragraph 3 of Annex B to the SPS Agreement . 
18.  Moreover, Japan believes that the measures referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, are 
inconsistent with relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement .  Specifically, Japan considers that: 
a. The measures in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the 
SPS Agreement , because they arbitrarily or unjusti fiably discriminate between Members 
where identical or similar conditions prevail, or because they are applied in a manner 
which constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade; 
b. The measures in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, are inconsistent with Article 5.5 of the 
SPS Agreement , because they entail arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of 
protection in different situations that result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on the importation of food products from Japan; 
c. The measures in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, are inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement , because they are more trade-restrictive than required to achieve 
Korea's appropriate level of protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility; 
d. The measures in paragraph 14, above, to the extent they constitute control, inspection 
or approval procedures, are inconsistent with Article 8 and paragraphs 1(a), 1(c), 1(e) and 1(g) of Annex C to the SPS Agreement , because:  the relevant procedures are not 
undertaken and completed in no less favorable manner for imported products than for 
like domestic products; because the information requirements for control, inspection and approval procedures are not limited to what is necessary; because the requirements for 
control, inspection and approval of indivi dual specimens are not limited to what is 
reasonable and necessary; and, because the criteria used in the siting of facilities are not the same and do not minimize the inconvenience to applicants, importers, exporters or their agents. 
19.  Japan considers that the measures in question also nullify or impair, within the meaning of 
Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994, benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under the SPS 
Agreement . 
20.  Japan asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the agenda for the 
next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, which is scheduled for 31 August 2015, and that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel with standard terms of reference as set out in 
Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
__________  
                                               
7 G/SPS/19/Rev.2.