EU-Japan EPA seminar on preferential origin procedures in commemoration of the first anniversary of the EU-Japan
EPA (4 February 2020 (Tokyo), 6 February 2020 (Osaka))

Questions and Answers session,
with Answers provided by the representatives of the European Commission (COM).

Q-1 on obligations for EU exporters; € 6000 threshold:
Regarding the REX NUMBER, it is common for an exporter to include its exporter reference
number ("EXPORTER REFERENCE NO XXXXXXX") on the invoice when the exporter
makes out a Statement on Origin on the invoices.
However, if the EU exporter has not obtained a REX NUMBER, Japan Customs has advisedthat it is acceptable to leave this number blank.
However, according to the presentation delivered by the European Commission February 2019
in the seminar on RoO Procedures under EU-Japan EPA, he introduced a definition of"exporter" stating that in the EU, if an exporter wants to make out a Statement on Origin, thatexporter must be registered in the REX system for consignments with a value of more than €6000. However, there is no need to register for shipments equivalent to € 6000 or less. (SeeFootnote 2 in Annex 3-D Text of the Statement on Origin.)
Seminar secretariat’s Reminder: Does € 6000 shipment require REX Number?
Commission website “REX – Registered Exporter system” states that “below” and “above”.
This is the source of confusion.
(A-1 provided by COM)
An EU exporter is only required to obtain a REX number if that exporter makes out a statement
on origin for originating products with a value of more than €6000. See however, also theanswer to Q-2-3.
--------Q-2 on obligations for EU exporters; REX Registration system and its exempted case forpreferential export:
Q 2-1 How much is the ratio of REX number holders among exporters?
Q 2-2 Does the exporter need to specify the HS number of the eligible products applicable for
EPA(GSP) when the exporter registers with the REX system?
Q 2-3. It is not required for an exporter to register with the REX system for a consignment
valued under 6000 Euro. This means that any exporter needs to register with the REX
system when it exports goods valued not less than 6000 Euro under the certain
preferential regimes. May I understand from this fact that the goods is not originatingin EU if the REX number is not placed in the statement on origin on the invoice forshipments of 6000 Euro or more?
(A-2 provided by COM)
A 2-1 This information is not available. We can only provide the number REX holders in the
EU (30083, (42643 when including UK))A 2-2 The HS-code for eligible products needs to be provided in the request for the registration
but only for indicative purposes. Once registered, the registration does not need to be
updated if the exporter makes out a statement for products with a different HS code.
A 2-3 Although the EU’s internal legislation refers to a total consignment value of €6000 (fororiginating products) which, if exceeded, requires the exporter to be registered before
making out a statement on origin, no absolute conclusion can be drawn on theoriginating status of the products included in the statement on origin in case the exporter
is not identified through its REX number.
The reason is that the value of the consignment can be expressed in many different ways
dependent on incoterms used (e.g. ex-works, fob or cif), possible fluctuations in
exchange rates where the value of the consignment is expressed in a different currency,
or subsequent transactions in case the statement on origin is made out by a trading
company.
As long as the exporter is clearly identified in the statement on origin, either by meansof a REX number or otherwise (name, address, etc.) the statement on origin should beconsidered valid. The absence of a REX number may nevertheless be considered, inlight of the value of the consignment, as an element for the risk assessment to be appliedon the basis of Article 3.21(1) of the EU-Japan EPA.
--------Q-3 on the Statement on Origin for multiple shipments; reference to invoices:
On page 7 of the EU-Japan EPA Guidance, "Statement on Origin", published by the European
Commission on December 16, 2019, it states;
A Statement on Origin can be printed on a separate paper (e.g., a blank paper or a paper with acompany letterhead), other than on an invoice or other commercial document, where:-that invoice or any other commercial document makes a reference to that separate paper, or-that separate paper makes a reference to the invoice or any other commercial document.

Q 3-1 If the shipper of the originating goods issues an invoice referring to the document
number assigned to the statement on origin for multiple shipments made out by the
producer of the originating goods, will this case be acceptable?
Q 3-2 Apart from the flow of goods in trade, the flow of documents reflects the actual business
contracts. Thus, an invoice is often being replaced with the new one (reinvoiced).
Relative to Sub-Question 1 of the Guidance, under the above-mentioned circumstances,
will it be acceptable if the document number assigned to the statement on origin madeout by the producer of the originating goods is properly referred to on the replaced
invoice?
(A-3 provided by COM)
A 3-1 There is a specific EU Guidance on “Statement on Origin for multiple shipments ofidentical products sets out the practical arrangement for products imported in the EU”
in the context of the EU-Japan EPA. It states that:2

“The procedure for claiming preferential tariff treatment shall be slightly different inrespective of whether the claim is based on a statement on origin made out for a single
shipment or for multiple shipments of identical products. The statement on origin for
multiple shipments which is used at the start date shall indicate both the start and end
date of its use. Any subsequent claim of preferential tariff treatment for identicalproducts within the start and end date of the statement shall be based on this initialstatement. For this purpose, a reference to the initial statement shall be included under
Data Element 2/3 (Documents produced, certificates and authorisations, additionalreferences), as an ‘additional reference’. The code to be used both for the initial use of
the statement and any following statements is “U111”. In addition, the importer shallkeep in its records commercial documents for the identical products for subsequentconsignments within the validity period. The commercial documents for such
subsequent consignments do not need to contain a statement on origin.”
The Guidance can be found here:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/eu_japan_epa_guidance_statement_on_origin_for_multiple_shipments_of_identical_products_en.pdf
This means that, in accordance with the above Guidance, the invoice issued by theshipper (the trading company) does not need to contain a reference to the statement on
origin made out by the producer.
A 3-2 The question is whether an invoice which is used for the statement on origin which itself
is replaced by a new invoice (re-invoicing) can still be used. This question can beseparated into 3 scenarios:a) the re-invoicing takes place in the exporting Party: in that case the new invoice may
include a reference to the original invoice containing the statement on origin: theoriginal invoice needs to be annexed to the new invoice;b) the re-invoicing takes place in a third country: this is not in accordance with common
guidance on Statement on Origin, as the new invoice would not be made out in either
Party;c) the re-invoicing takes place in the territory of the importing Party: this is a matterfor the importing Party to decide; in the EU this is possible under Article 69 of the
UCC Implementing Regulation (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)2015/2447 of 24 November 2015, which covers the replacement in the EU of
documents on preferential origin issued or made out in exporting countries.
--------Q-4 on the Statement on Origin; exporter and person making out the commercial
document not being the same person:
In the third and fourth scenarios on page 6 of the EU-Japan EPA Guidance "Statement on
Origin", one must indicate that the person having issued the commercial document is not3

identical to the exporter making out the Statement on Origin. Is there any model text whichmeets the requirement in these scenarios?
(Related Articles and Pages of the Guidance)
EU-Japan EPA Guidance "Statement on Origin" "2. Guidance"(p.6)"The two last scenarios
nevertheless imply that the exporter making out the Statement on Origin, and not being theperson having issued the commercial document, is clearly identified on that document. In thecase where an Exporter’s Reference Number has not been assigned, i.e., the exporter cannot be
identified, the exporter may indicate its full address under the part "Place and date"."(A-4 provided by COM)
The Guidance does not require a specific text under the scenarios where the person issuing thecommercial document is not the exporter who makes out the statement on origin. The text ofthe statement on origin is always the text as provided in Annex 3-D to Chapter 3 of the EUJapan EPA and must assure that the exporter is identified.
--------Q-5 on data elements in import declaration:
Japan Customs has made progress in simplifying NACCS 1 clearance system for EPA
preferential imports if detailed explanation on the originating status cannot be submitted. The
new process is to insert the code "Q" or "F" depending on who made out the Statement on
Origin. What methods are used in the Statement on Origin process by the importing customs
authorities of the EU member states, and what materials (explanations) are required for each
EU member state, in addition to the text of the Statement on Origin?
(A-5 provided by COM)
Article 3.16(3) of the EU-Japan EPA provides that a claim for preferential tariff treatment andits basis as referred to in subparagraph 2(a) or (b) shall be included in the customs importdeclaration in accordance with the laws and regulations of the importing Party.
The EU Guidance on “Claim, verification and denial” provides that:“The common data requirements for customs declarations are laid down in Annex B, Title I ofCommission Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 and their format and codes are laid down inAnnex B of Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2447”.
In the EU, to claim preferential tariff treatment, the use of Data Element 4/17 (Preference) is
mandatory in customs declarations of release for free circulation of goods. The information to
be provided under that Data Element, in all cases where a preferential tariff treatment isclaimed on the basis of a preferential trade arrangement like the EU-Japan Economic
Partnership Agreement, shall consist in a three-digit code whose first digit shall be “3” andthe next two digits “00”

1 Nippon Automated Cargo and Port Consolidated System

4That information shall be supplemented by the indication of the appropriate code which is “JP”
for Japan as country of origin of the goods in Data Element 5/16 (Country of preferential origincode).
In addition, the following specific information shall be included under Data Element 2/3(Documents produced, certificates and authorisations, additional references):-

where the claim for preferential tariff treatment is based on a 'statement of origin for asingle shipment, the code “U110”;-

where the claim for preferential tariff treatment is based on a 'statement of origin for
multiple shipments of identical products, the code “U111”;-

where the claim for preferential tariff treatment is based on ‘importer’s knowledge’, thecode “U112”.

The basis of the claim, i.e. by using either the statement on origin or importer’s knowledge,
determines the way a verification may be conducted.
Article 3.16 allows the importing customs authority to request additional ‘explanations’ fromthe importer as part of the claim if such information is available to him/her. This information
may therefore be requested before the phase of verification.
However, in the EU, such additional ‘explanations’ are not requested as part of the assessmentof the claim. Information is only requested as part of the verification process if the claim isselected for verification based on risk assessment criteria.”
The Guidance can be found here:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/eu_japan_epa_guidance_claim_verif
ication_denial_en.pdf
Q-6 on the identification as the exporter or the producer:
With regard to the code of identification claiming preferential origin used for the electronic
import declaration under the NACCS system, the fixed statement text shall be used as provided
in Annex 3-D (of the EU-Japan EPA). This means that the statement on origin shall start from“the exporter” even if the producer makes out the statement on origin. Under the circumstances,
I always place the letter “E” (statement on origin by the exporter) at the third digit of theidentification code. When the producer makes out a statement on origin, should I place the letter“P” (statement on origin by the producer) at the third digit of the identification code?
In such a case, should the statement text read “The manufacturer (or producer) of the products
covered by this document ・・・ ” instead of the fixed text under Annex 3-D?
(A6 provided by Japan Customs) (uploaded as A-4 in the Q & A for Japan Customs)
Article 3.1(c) of the Japan-EU EPA provides that the "exporter" means a person, located in a
Party, who, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the laws and regulations of that
Party, exports or produces the originating product and makes out a statement on origin. From
this definition it is obvious that the exporter includes a person who produces the originatingproduct. Therefore, the text of the Statement on Origin shall be made out by stating “Theexporter ・・・” even though the producer possesses necessary document to prove the originating
status of the product. In addition to it, the letter “P” should be inserted to process NACCS
clearance system.

5Q-6a:Do the Customs administrations in the EU administer the same way as the Japan Customs
answered?
(A-6a provided by COM)
No, for the claim for preferential tariff treatment in the EU it is not relevant to identify whether
the exporter as defined in Article 3.1(c) of the EU-Japan EPA, and making out the statement on
origin, either produces or only exports the originating products.
--------Q-7 on the use of the Statement on Origin following storage in a customs warehouse:
As stated in Article 3.29 of the EU/Japan EPA, for originating goods for which the application
for approval of storing in the Customs warehouse is lodged prior to the entry into force of theAgreement to be granted preferential tariff treatment, a claim for the preferential tariff treatment
shall be made along the import clearance procedure (including filing for the permit to withdraw
cargoes from a customs warehouse) within 12 months of that date (i.e., to be undertaken by 31
January 2020).
Is it possible to interpret from this provision that any originating good for which the application
for approval of storing in the Customs warehouse is lodged on and after the entry into force of
the Agreement may be granted preferential tariff treatment if the good is stored in a customs
warehouse before the statement on origin expires (one year from the date of making out)? The
reason behind this argument is that the Customs law and regulations of Japan requires
submission of the valid statement on origin at the time of storing the goods in the customs
warehouse, but no provision is set out for the deadline for the import declaration of theoriginating goods.
(A-7 provided by Japan Customs)
Article 3.17(4) provides that “A statement on origin shall be valid for 12 months from the dateit was made out”.
Concerning the originating products for which the application for approval of storing in the
Customs warehouse is lodged on and after the entry into force of the Agreement, the Statement
on Origin shall be submitted at the time of the application (Customs Law Article 43-3).
Therefore, any Statement on Origin made out over 12 months ago at the time of the application
is invalid.
However, when the Statement on Origin has already been submitted at the time of theapplication for approval of storing in the Customs warehouse, it is not necessary to resubmit
the Statement on origin for the import/withdrawal declaration of the products. Thus eventhough more than 12 months has passed since the date of making out the Statement on Origin,preferential treatment is applicable at the time of import/withdrawal declaration of the
products (Customs Law, Article 43-3). Having said that please note that the maximum period
to store the products in the Customs warehouse is two years from the date of approval of storing(Customs Law, Article 43-2).
---------

6

Q-7a:Do the Customs administrations in the EU administer the same way as the Japan Customs
answered?
(A-7a provided by COM)
Not exactly. The claim for preferential tariff treatment in the EU must be made within thevalidity period of 12 months of the statement on origin, which means the Statement on Origin
must be valid e.g. when the goods are released from the Customs warehouse by the importer
making a claim for preferential tariff treatment. The exporter, provided this person continues tofulfil the obligations under the EU-Japan EPA, would be able to make out a new statement on
origin for products exported from the exporting Party, which may serve as the basis of the claim.
--------Q-8 on the possibility to omit the name of the exporter in the Statement on Origin:
When an exporter (or a producer) makes out a statement on origin, the printed name of theexporter shall be placed in accordance with Annex 3-D.
Taking into account footnote 5 to Annex 3-D stating that the “place and date may be omitted if
the information is contained on the document itself”, could the requirement mentioned above
be waived when the name of the exporter is clearly indicated on an invoice or other relevant
commercial documents?
If the answer is negative, i.e., placing the name of the exporter being mandatory, will Japan
Customs treat this statement on origin without the name of the exporter as the case of error oromission which does not affect the validity of the statement or will there be any possibility toinvalidate the statement and thus deny the preferential tariff treatment for the goods in question?
(A-8 provided by Japan Customs)
The Agreement does not provide that the name of the exporter is omitted, even if the name ofthe exporter is clearly identified with the referred commercial document, please print (or write
down) the name of the exporter on the Statement on Origin.
When you are about to lodge the Customs import clearance and recognise that the name of theexporter is omitted on the Statement on Origin, please consult with the Customs office.
Q-8a:
Do the Customs administrations in the EU administer the same way as the Japan Customs
answered?
(A-8a provided by COM)
Yes---------

7

Q-9 on differences of implementation:
Please let us know whether the Statement on Origin is treated in the same manner by every
customs authority in the EU member states. With respect to the exports in which we are
involved:(1)
In some of the EU member states, the commercial documents (e.g., invoices and packing
lists) which contain Statements on Origin made out by Japanese producers have not been
accepted;(2)

On the other hand, in several other countries, the documents have been accepted.

It is understood that the above-mentioned documents fall under the third of the four scenarios
described on page 6 of the EU-Japan EPA Guidance "Statement on Origin". Has the issuanceof this Guidance ensured uniformity of operation among EU customs authorities?
(Related Articles and Pages of the EU-Japan Guidance)
EU-Japan EPA Guidance "Statement on Origin" pp.3-7 "2. Guidance" (Especially p.6 isrelevant.)" … the producer acting as the "exporter", although not exporting the products, makes out aStatement on Origin on a document of the trading company."(A-9 provided by COM)
Possible differences in the way to implement relevant provisions have been addressed by the
EU Guidance document.
--------Q-10 on repayment/ remission of customs duties in the EU:
Q 10-1: It is our understanding that if the FTA preferential claim is made retrospectively after
the goods have gone through import clearance, importers have the right to apply within
three years from the date of the customs clearance, under the EU Customs Code (UCC).
Is this correct?
There are also cases where customs officers have instructed that retroactive applications
should be filed within the validity period of the Statement on Origin (one year). Can
importers file a "retroactive application" even after the validity period of the Statement
on Origin has expired?
Q 10-2: How long will it take for an actual refund, after the refund decision has been made?
We have heard that there is substantial variation in the refund period between the EU
Member States.
Q 10-3: According to the EU-Japan EPA Guidance on the "Statement on Origin", it seems thatin general, "the customs authority will make a decision on the refund and inform theapplicant at the latest 120 days from the date of receipt of the application." Is thiscorrect?
Also, if the importer does not receive a decision notice within 120 days, or if theimporters are told that it will take several years for the actual refund, is there a contact
point that the importers can use to discuss the situation?

8

Furthermore, if the operation varies from customs to customs, and if the importers are
informed that the refund process will take a long time or they are told that it is impossible
for the customs office to conduct the process, due to their capacity, can the importers
apply to another customs office of another EU member state as an alternative choice?
(A-10 provided by COM)
A 10-1 Yes.
The claim for repayment/ remission must be based on a valid statement on origin.
However, for the purpose of a retrospective claim for preferential treatment by theimporter in the EU, the exporter in Japan, provided this person continues to fulfil theobligations under the EU-Japan EPA, would be able to make out a new statement on
origin for products exported from the exporting Party, which may serve as the basis of
this claim during its validity period.
The application for repayment or remission of the overcharged amount of duty mustindeed, in normal circumstances, be submitted within three years of the date of thenotification of the customs debt, meaning in such case the date of the customs importdeclaration releasing the products for free circulation in the EU (Articles 117 and121(1)(a) of the UCC - Regulation EU) No 952/2013 of 9 October 2013).
A 10-2 The time period within which a decision must be taken by the customs authority upon
an application for repayment or remission is indeed the standard period regulated in
Article 22(3) of the Union Customs Code. It provides for a decision to be taken by thecustoms authority without delay and at the latest within 120 days of the date of theapplication. Extension of that time-limit is nevertheless possible under certain
conditions.
A 10-3 The application for repayment or remission must be submitted to and the decision takenby the competent customs authority of the Member State where the customs debt was
initially notified, and the overcharged amount of duty recovered.
Details on the process of applications and decisions for repayment or remission can befound in Articles 92-97 of the UCC Delegated Act (Commission Delegated Regulation(EU) 2015/2446) and 172-180 of the UCC Implementing Act (Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/244), as well in dedicated Commission Guidance:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/rem-rep-guidance-en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/customs/custo
ms_code/guidance_rem_rec_en.pdf--------Q-11 on Binding Information:
With regard to the Advance Ruling System (BTI, BOI), we have heard from some companies
that non-EU companies which do not have a branch in the EU, and are unable to obtain an EORI
number, are de facto held back from obtaining BTI/BOI. The bottleneck for Japanesecompanies when using the BTI/BOI system is that they cannot de facto use such system without
the cooperation of the importer. We hope that you will consider improving the system so thatit can be used by exporters alone.

9https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-commoncustoms-tariff/binding-tariff-information-bti_en
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/binding-origin-information-boi
According to the WTO Report below, the majority of BOI issuances are concentrated in one
EU member state. We understand that this one EU member state is the UK, where applications
in English are easily made. We are concerned that the use of the Advance Ruling System will
decrease drastically after Brexit. How has the EU been addressing this issue? We are hopingthat the EU will consider improving the system so that it can be easily used in English as well,even after Brexit.
World Trade Organization, "TRADE POLICY REVIEW, Report by the Secretariat The
European Union WT/TPR/S/357" (17 May 2017)
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155733.pdf(A-11 provided by COM)
It is not required to be established in the EU (however an EORI number is necessary) to apply
for and obtain a decision relating to binding information on origin - BOIs or tariff classification– BTI, insofar as there is an intended use of that decision by the applicant. It is true that thecustoms declaration by which a preferential tariff treatment is claimed must be lodged by adeclarant (being the person in whose name the declaration is lodged) established in the EU.
However, that established declarant could be an indirect representative, declaring the products
and claiming the preference in his own name but on behalf of the holder of the binding
information. The Commission is currently reviewing with Member States the use of decisions
relating to binding information by non-established holders of those decisions.
Regarding the second part of the question your understanding that UK issues the majority of
BOI in the EU does not reflect the reality. It is however foreseen that, after the end of thetransition period, BOIs issued in the UK will be valid only there, while BOIs issued in EU27
will no longer be valid in the UK. The Commission does not see this as an issue to be addressed.
You can refer to point 2.3 of the Commission Guidance Note of 22.11.2019 on “Withdrawal of
the UK and customs related matters in case of no deal”, which may be considered still relevant,mutatis mutandis, in the perspective of the end of the transition period established by theWithdrawal Agreement:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/guidance-customs-procedures_en_0.pdf--------Q-12 on verification:(1) Please provide examples of cases in which the customs authority of the exporting country(EU Member State) conducted the verification against the exporter in writing or by site visits,
and eventually denied preferential tariff treatment. In addition, please let us know what practicalselection criteria the verification is based on.
(A-12 provided by COM)
This information is considered confidential.

10--------Q 13 on denial of Preferential Tariff Treatment:
If there is any case where preferential tariff treatment was denied after the verification was
conducted, please let us know the details of the case, along with the reason of the denial, to theextent possible.
(Related Articles and Pages of the EU-Japan Guidance Guidelines)
EU-Japan EPA Guidance, "Statement on Origin" p. 7, pp. 9-10
(A 13 provided by COM)
This information is considered confidential.
--------Q-14 on providing explanations in the EU:
Please provide us with the current ratio of import declarations where exporters or producers areunable to provide information on the origin of the exported goods (i.e., where there is only the
text of the Statement on Origin) on import declarations with detailed explanations [that the
product satisfies the origin criteria].
(A-14 provided by COM)
See A-5 provided by COM. In the EU, additional ‘explanations’ are not requested as part of theassessment of the claim.
--------Q-15 on verification:
This question concerns improving the use of the EU-Japan EPA.
Please inform us of the current status (e.g., numbers and content) of the verification conducted
or denials of preferential tariff treatment made by the customs administrations of EU member
states with regards to the FTAs, including the EU-Japan EPA.
If each customs authority of the EU member states deals with the verification or denials ofpreferential tariff treatment, and the European Commission is not in a position to know thesituation, we hope that the European Commission will take measures to improve the situation,such as by requesting the customs authorities of each EU member state to disclose anddisseminate information in English.
(A-15 provided by COM)
This information is considered confidential.
-0-0-0-0-0-

11