2005年1月WTO对日本贸易政策审议-中国政府的问题和评论(英文)
WTO Trade Policy Review of Japan
Questions and Comments from China
January 25-27, 2005
Market Access
1. As noted in paragraph 11 on page 60 of the Secretariat Report, the procedure of the Tariff Quota administration of Japan tends to be intricate. In China’s view, it is of much complexity and lacks transparency. China hopes that Japan will improve the transparency of its Tariff Quota administration. At present, we understand that there are 20 categories of products subject to Tariff Quota administration of Japan, including rice, wheat, maize, ketch-up, dairy products, skimmed milk powder, butter, starch and its products, peanuts, edible oil, etc. To acquire an overall understanding of the Tariff Quota system of Japan, China would like to request that Japan
-- provide a list of all the products subject to Tariff Quota administration in 2004, including both the agricultural and industrial products.
-- clarify whether this list of Tariff Quota products changes on a yearly basis, and comparing the 2004 list to the list of Tariff Quota products as committed in Japan’s Goods Schedule of the Uruguay Round, whether new products are or will be added or eliminated for the 2005 list.
2. China is of great concern over the trade regime of rice in Japan. As far as we understand, as notified in December 1998 to the WTO, a new system for import of rice came into force on 1 April 1999, according to which the out-of-quota tariff rate of rice was 350 Yen/kg in 1999, which would be reduced by 2.5% every year thereafter. However, the specific duty adopted complicates the tariff regime.
-- Please provide the applied out-of quota tariff rate of rice from 1999 to 2004. Is a 2.5% cut executed each year after 1999? Does Japan have any plan to reform the current system?
3. Regarding the Tariff Quota administration for import of rice, judging from the information acquired, we believe that the detailed administration procedure for import of rice under the MMA framework reflects virtually little transparency, and the quota allocation are not in line with such fundamental principles of the WTO as non-discrimination. As a matter of fact, this procedure has excluded certain other important potential suppliers from the allocation of the majority of the quota under the MMA framework except for the SBS system. China strongly requests this practice be corrected immediately. China will pursue further this issue with Japan through bilateral channels. In this trade policy review, China hopes that some light would be shed on certain aspects of the Tariff Quota administration for import of rice in Japan, and China would like to request Japan to answer the following questions:
-- What are the domestic laws and regulations in Japan to stipulate on or govern the quota allocation under the MMA framework, including both the general quota allocation and the SBS quota allocation? Please provide the English version of the laws and regulations.
-- Under both the general quota allocation and the SBS quota allocation under the MMA framework, does Japan apply only global quota? Or only country-specific quota? Or use both? If there is country-specific quota, on what basis are the quota volumes decided?
-- What is the annual total quota volume of the general quota and the SBS quota under the MMA framework in 2002, 2003 and 2004? Among these volumes, what is the country-specific quota volume respectively in the three years? Among the country-specific quotas, what are the proportions of the major suppliers?
4. After the rice is imported under the MMA framework, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will sell it to domestic wholesale dealers at a price with import mark-up included, and the mark-up is set according to internal criteria which reportedly treat different varieties of rice from different countries differently.
-- Please provide the detailed data of import mark-up for the different varieties of rice imported under the MMA framework from different countries in 2004 when they are sold into the domestic market.
5. As we have noticed, after the rice is imported under the MMA framework, only a limited amount of the imported rice enters into the Japanese domestic market, and a quite large amount of the imported rice is kept in warehouse.
-- Please clarify if any restrictions or conditions exist for the imported rice to enter the Japanese domestic market. If yes, please elaborate and explain its consistence with Article 3 of GATT 1994. If no, why such a large amount of the imported rice remains in warehouse?
6. As noted in paragraph 3 on page 24 of the Secretariat Report, certain aspects of the import quota system in Japan can be intricate.
-- Please provide detailed information of the import quota administration system of Japan, including the list of all the products under quota administration in year 2004. Does the quota administration vary according to products? How is the quota volume decided for each of the products? For these products subject to quota administration, only global quota applies or there is also country-specific quota applied? What are the detailed procedures to allocate the quota? What are the relevant domestic laws and regulations stipulating on import quota administration?
-- Please confirm whether Japan has notified its import quota administration system to the Committee on Market Access or the Committee on Import Licensing Procedures. If so, please provide the reference number of the WTO document.
7. We noticed that Japan is a frequent user of special safeguard measures in the agriculture sector.
-- Please explain why Japan has been using special safeguard measures so frequently in the past few years. Is the Japanese government going to refrain from using it?
Customs Clearance
8. China appreciates the progress made by Japan in terms of facilitating customs declaration and clearance. However, according to our knowledge, fresh and live goods are subject to an excessively long period for clearance at the Japanese Customs, which has caused much loss to exporters of Members. Therefore, China hopes that Japan could explain the following issues:
-- How long is the average period for clearance of imported agricultural products at the Japanese Customs? Are different time periods for customs clearance applied to the same agricultural products from different origins? With regard to fresh and time-sensitive products, has the Japanese Customs adopted any special measures? If yes, please provide details. If no, please indicate whether Japan intends to expedite customs clearance for special products such as fresh and time-sensitive goods in Japan’s further efforts to streamline customs procedures.
Trade-related Investment Measures
9. Companies located in the Foreign Access Zones may benefit from many policy-based incentives and exemptions:
-- Please indicate whether the scheme applies to both domestic and foreign enterprises equally? How would the Japanese Government ensure the consistency of the scheme with WTO rules?
Trade in Service
10. For financial services providers, membership of the Japanese government bond transaction system is a prerequisite for conducting domestic government bond transaction in Japan.
-- Please indicate the relevant qualification requirements and approval procedure.
11. With regard to deposit insurance system, Japan does not allow branches of foreign banks to join the system.
-- Would Japan elaborate the rationale for maintaining this ban?
12. At present, medical service providers are not allowed to establish joint ventures in Japan.
-- Is Japan going to consider liberalizing forms of commercial presences of medical services? If not, what’s the policy consideration behind such restriction?
13. To our knowledge, Japan now implements extremely high experiences and performance requirements on executives of locally registered construction enterprises, and also imposes minimum turnover requirements on these enterprises.
-- Would Japan please advise whether there is consideration to loosen such requirements? Does minimum turnover requirement also apply to Japanese domestic enterprises?
14. With respect to container ships berthing at Japanese ports for the first time, Japan requires the name, tonnage, slot capacity and port to berth be reported to Japan for prior approval through agents 60 days in advance of arrival of the ship at the Japanese port. Those ships having obtained the approval but intending to change routes are also subject to these procedures. This has caused great loss to foreign services suppliers.
-- Please indicate whether Japan will consider changing this practice. Please also explain the consistency of this requirement with Japan’s commitments on maritime services.
15. To our knowledge, foreign companies are not allowed to establish solely-owned company to operate non-vessel carrier services in Japan.
-- Please explain the consistency of this requirement with Japan’s commitments on maritime services. China would like to request Japan to remove this restriction.
16. China hopes to learn more about Japanese telecom regulatory system and legislations.
-- Please provide a list of laws and regulations in the telecom sector.
-- Please provide information relating to the market share held by leading telecom carriers in the fix line, mobile, fax and data transmission services in Japan. How have the leading telecom carriers been restructured since the last review?
-- Please provide information on the regulatory framework for private investment in the telecom sector, and the total number, service scope and market share held by the private telecom enterprises.
-- In case of unfair competition among telecom enterprises, which law is applicable: the law on telecom or the law on anti-competition? Have there been any cases in this regard?
-- Please provide information regarding the following areas:
* Policies and regulations on callback service and telephone card service;
* Policies and regulations on the interconnection among telecom networks;
* Provisions on telecom standardization and protection policies on the interests of telecom service users.
Inspection and Quarantine Measures and Technical Regulations
17. In January 2004, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (MAFF) of Japan completely suspended the importation of birds/poultry and their products originating from China due to the outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. The Chinese government has since taken effective measures of extermination, control and preemptive protection to contain the epidemic situation. It has been half a year since the last case of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza was detected in China. However, the importation of fresh and frozen poultry products from China has not yet resumed. The period of time of half a year has doubled the 90-day period stated in the bilateral agreement between China and Japan on poultry sanitary requirements.
-- Please explain the reason for the failure of the Japanese government to lift the import ban on fresh and frozen poultry products originating from China.
-- Please clarify the consistency of this practice of delay by Japan with Article 2.2, 5.4, 5.8 and Annex C 1(a) and (b) of the WTO SPS Agreement.
-- When will Japan lift the ban on importation of fresh and frozen poultry products?
18. As to the suspension of importation of cooked poultry products originating from China by Japan due to the same reason as mentioned in question No.17, the Japanese side sent 5 groups of veterinary staff to inspect 35 processing plants of cooked poultry products recommended by the Chinese side in March 2004. As a result, MAFF of Japan approved and registered the aforesaid 35 plants on 7 April 2004, which justified that both the hardware conditions and the
management system of the Chinese enterprises are in line with standards set by Japan.
The Chinese side then recommended another 122 enterprises that have also met the criteria set in the Sanitary Requirements on Cooked Poultry and Poultry Products for Export to Japan, which was mutually agreed by China and Japan. Although the Chinese side has requested the Japanese side many times to conduct on-spot inspection of those enterprises and accelerate their registration. However, up to now Japan has not sent any groups to inspect those enterprises.
The same thing is repeated by Japan regarding the inspection of Chinese processing plants of cloven hoofed animal products, which has brought negative impact on trade.
-- Please explain the reason for the repeated delay of inspection on Chinese enterprises by Japan.
-- Please explain the compliance of this practice of Japan with Articles 5.4, 5.8 and Annex C 1(a) and (b) of the WTO SPS Agreement.
19. Ministry of Health of Japan has initiated sampling inspection of cyclamate on many import foodstuffs. Recently Japan decided to further expand the products coverage of this inspection.
-- Please explain on the grounds of the above-mentioned inspection measures of Japan. Why CAC standard can not be accepted as the basis, please provide scientific justification.
-- Please advise when Japan will abolish this requirement of inspection.
20. The over strict residue level standard on agricultural products that Japan adopted and the quarantine and inspection measures taken in accordance with these standards have seriously affected the trade between Japan and other WTO members including China. According to its Food Sanitation Law, Japan adopted MRLs of 670 different pesticides, veterinarian drug and food additives in 2004, which are far stricter than the international standards of CAC and those of other developed countries. In addition, the required MRLs of the various species of the same kind of product are severely different from each other. of the MRLs for the products produced in Japan are different and less strict than those of the imported products.
-- In view of the obvious negative impact on trade when such a large amount of new standards are implemented, how does Japan ensure the consistency of such a practice with the principle provided for in Article 5.4 of the WTO SPS Agreement?
-- Please explain whether national treatment principle and Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement have been observed in this process.
-- Please explain whether any transitional period has been provided for implementation of these new standards. In accordance with the principle of special and differential treatment, does Japan plan to grant any additional transitional period for developing Members taking into account their practical difficulties?
-- China provided detailed comments on this issue in November 2004. However no substantial explanations were received to these comments in the reply from the Japanese side dated 17 December 2004. Please indicate whether Japan has taken into consideration of the comments from other WTO Members in the process of adopting a standard, and how?
21. In our point of view, application of technical barriers in Japan including residue level standards etc in many cases lacks rationality and is inconsistent with WTO principles especially the national treatment principle that SPS and TBT measures should observe. China would like to request that explanation and clarification be provided by Japan on the following cases:
(1) Japan requests that the Chiorpyifos residue level of the imported fresh and frozen spinach shall be lower than 0.01 ppm, which is not only far stricter than the CAC international standard of 0.05 ppm and that of other developed countries, but also stricter than the Chiorpyifos residue level for vegetables produced in Japan.
-- Please provide scientific evidence to explain why Japan’s requirement is far stricter than the existing CAC standard. Please explain the reason why the required Chiorpyifos residue levels of the vegetables produced in Japan are 3 ppm while that of the imported vegetable is 0.01 ppm.
(2) Japan still maintains the requirement to inspect the daminozide residue level in imported peanuts from China after 10 years of inspection without finding problems. In terms of roasted eel, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan suddenly adopted a mandatory inspection on residue of enrofloxacin from July 2003, which required the enrofloxacin residue level to be below 0.05 ppm. While Japan conducts this inspection on each and every batch of imported roasted eel, it does not conduct such inspection on its domestic products.
-- Please explain whether this practice complies with Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement and the national treatment principle? Does Japan have any plan to eliminate these mandatory inspections?
(3) Japan stipulated that, from 1 August 2003 all the plastic toys sold on the market shall not be made from the PVC material containing DEHP, and the toys for oral contacts of the suckling shall not be made from PVC containing DENP. However, Japan’s definition of the suckling refers to infants under age of 6. This ban of usage of DEHP/DIHP contained in PVC is stricter than the international common practice, which defined the suckling under age of 3. In addition, the current laboratory result has not shown any negative effects of DEHP or DIHP on human beings yet.
-- Please explain whether this ban complies with Article 2.2 of TBT Agreement. If yes, please provide the scientific basis of this requirement.
Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights
22. With respect to Japan’s patent protection system, China hopes Japan could clarify on matters as follows:
-- As far as Article 103 of current Patent Law of Japan is concerned, would Japan please indicate whether Japan enforces rule of fault or rule of no-fault for infringement determination and compensation?
-- Please advise the number of applications for patents, utilities and designs from different WTO Members’ applicants as well as application review period (i.e. time from lodging request for substantial examination till final approval). Please also provide corresponding data for Japanese applicants.
-- Please advise the number of patent infringement cases accepted by Japanese courts since last review and percentage of cases in which claimants won.
23. Japan began to enforce a new amendment to the Law of Seedling on 1 July 2003, by which Japan conducts DNA test to certain products imported from China, such as Chinese iris, to determine whether such products have offended IPR of Japan and whether to adopt applicable import restrictive measures as deem necessary.
-- Would Japan please describe the specific procedures for adopting import restrictive measures under such circumstance? And is it consistent with WTO rules to adopt import restrictive measures under such condition?
-- Would Japan please indicate whether it is rational to maintain the practice of examining by opening each and every container under the circumstance that Japan had found no problems at all in all the examinations of the rush imported from China? Does such practice comply with WTO rules? If yes, please provide the specifics.
--Dose Japan import iris from other sources other than China? If yes, does Japan have the same practice of examination of those imports with that applied to those from China?
-- Please explain the consistency of the Law of Seedling with the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.
Questions and Comments from China
January 25-27, 2005
Market Access
1. As noted in paragraph 11 on page 60 of the Secretariat Report, the procedure of the Tariff Quota administration of Japan tends to be intricate. In China’s view, it is of much complexity and lacks transparency. China hopes that Japan will improve the transparency of its Tariff Quota administration. At present, we understand that there are 20 categories of products subject to Tariff Quota administration of Japan, including rice, wheat, maize, ketch-up, dairy products, skimmed milk powder, butter, starch and its products, peanuts, edible oil, etc. To acquire an overall understanding of the Tariff Quota system of Japan, China would like to request that Japan
-- provide a list of all the products subject to Tariff Quota administration in 2004, including both the agricultural and industrial products.
-- clarify whether this list of Tariff Quota products changes on a yearly basis, and comparing the 2004 list to the list of Tariff Quota products as committed in Japan’s Goods Schedule of the Uruguay Round, whether new products are or will be added or eliminated for the 2005 list.
2. China is of great concern over the trade regime of rice in Japan. As far as we understand, as notified in December 1998 to the WTO, a new system for import of rice came into force on 1 April 1999, according to which the out-of-quota tariff rate of rice was 350 Yen/kg in 1999, which would be reduced by 2.5% every year thereafter. However, the specific duty adopted complicates the tariff regime.
-- Please provide the applied out-of quota tariff rate of rice from 1999 to 2004. Is a 2.5% cut executed each year after 1999? Does Japan have any plan to reform the current system?
3. Regarding the Tariff Quota administration for import of rice, judging from the information acquired, we believe that the detailed administration procedure for import of rice under the MMA framework reflects virtually little transparency, and the quota allocation are not in line with such fundamental principles of the WTO as non-discrimination. As a matter of fact, this procedure has excluded certain other important potential suppliers from the allocation of the majority of the quota under the MMA framework except for the SBS system. China strongly requests this practice be corrected immediately. China will pursue further this issue with Japan through bilateral channels. In this trade policy review, China hopes that some light would be shed on certain aspects of the Tariff Quota administration for import of rice in Japan, and China would like to request Japan to answer the following questions:
-- What are the domestic laws and regulations in Japan to stipulate on or govern the quota allocation under the MMA framework, including both the general quota allocation and the SBS quota allocation? Please provide the English version of the laws and regulations.
-- Under both the general quota allocation and the SBS quota allocation under the MMA framework, does Japan apply only global quota? Or only country-specific quota? Or use both? If there is country-specific quota, on what basis are the quota volumes decided?
-- What is the annual total quota volume of the general quota and the SBS quota under the MMA framework in 2002, 2003 and 2004? Among these volumes, what is the country-specific quota volume respectively in the three years? Among the country-specific quotas, what are the proportions of the major suppliers?
4. After the rice is imported under the MMA framework, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will sell it to domestic wholesale dealers at a price with import mark-up included, and the mark-up is set according to internal criteria which reportedly treat different varieties of rice from different countries differently.
-- Please provide the detailed data of import mark-up for the different varieties of rice imported under the MMA framework from different countries in 2004 when they are sold into the domestic market.
5. As we have noticed, after the rice is imported under the MMA framework, only a limited amount of the imported rice enters into the Japanese domestic market, and a quite large amount of the imported rice is kept in warehouse.
-- Please clarify if any restrictions or conditions exist for the imported rice to enter the Japanese domestic market. If yes, please elaborate and explain its consistence with Article 3 of GATT 1994. If no, why such a large amount of the imported rice remains in warehouse?
6. As noted in paragraph 3 on page 24 of the Secretariat Report, certain aspects of the import quota system in Japan can be intricate.
-- Please provide detailed information of the import quota administration system of Japan, including the list of all the products under quota administration in year 2004. Does the quota administration vary according to products? How is the quota volume decided for each of the products? For these products subject to quota administration, only global quota applies or there is also country-specific quota applied? What are the detailed procedures to allocate the quota? What are the relevant domestic laws and regulations stipulating on import quota administration?
-- Please confirm whether Japan has notified its import quota administration system to the Committee on Market Access or the Committee on Import Licensing Procedures. If so, please provide the reference number of the WTO document.
7. We noticed that Japan is a frequent user of special safeguard measures in the agriculture sector.
-- Please explain why Japan has been using special safeguard measures so frequently in the past few years. Is the Japanese government going to refrain from using it?
Customs Clearance
8. China appreciates the progress made by Japan in terms of facilitating customs declaration and clearance. However, according to our knowledge, fresh and live goods are subject to an excessively long period for clearance at the Japanese Customs, which has caused much loss to exporters of Members. Therefore, China hopes that Japan could explain the following issues:
-- How long is the average period for clearance of imported agricultural products at the Japanese Customs? Are different time periods for customs clearance applied to the same agricultural products from different origins? With regard to fresh and time-sensitive products, has the Japanese Customs adopted any special measures? If yes, please provide details. If no, please indicate whether Japan intends to expedite customs clearance for special products such as fresh and time-sensitive goods in Japan’s further efforts to streamline customs procedures.
Trade-related Investment Measures
9. Companies located in the Foreign Access Zones may benefit from many policy-based incentives and exemptions:
-- Please indicate whether the scheme applies to both domestic and foreign enterprises equally? How would the Japanese Government ensure the consistency of the scheme with WTO rules?
Trade in Service
10. For financial services providers, membership of the Japanese government bond transaction system is a prerequisite for conducting domestic government bond transaction in Japan.
-- Please indicate the relevant qualification requirements and approval procedure.
11. With regard to deposit insurance system, Japan does not allow branches of foreign banks to join the system.
-- Would Japan elaborate the rationale for maintaining this ban?
12. At present, medical service providers are not allowed to establish joint ventures in Japan.
-- Is Japan going to consider liberalizing forms of commercial presences of medical services? If not, what’s the policy consideration behind such restriction?
13. To our knowledge, Japan now implements extremely high experiences and performance requirements on executives of locally registered construction enterprises, and also imposes minimum turnover requirements on these enterprises.
-- Would Japan please advise whether there is consideration to loosen such requirements? Does minimum turnover requirement also apply to Japanese domestic enterprises?
14. With respect to container ships berthing at Japanese ports for the first time, Japan requires the name, tonnage, slot capacity and port to berth be reported to Japan for prior approval through agents 60 days in advance of arrival of the ship at the Japanese port. Those ships having obtained the approval but intending to change routes are also subject to these procedures. This has caused great loss to foreign services suppliers.
-- Please indicate whether Japan will consider changing this practice. Please also explain the consistency of this requirement with Japan’s commitments on maritime services.
15. To our knowledge, foreign companies are not allowed to establish solely-owned company to operate non-vessel carrier services in Japan.
-- Please explain the consistency of this requirement with Japan’s commitments on maritime services. China would like to request Japan to remove this restriction.
16. China hopes to learn more about Japanese telecom regulatory system and legislations.
-- Please provide a list of laws and regulations in the telecom sector.
-- Please provide information relating to the market share held by leading telecom carriers in the fix line, mobile, fax and data transmission services in Japan. How have the leading telecom carriers been restructured since the last review?
-- Please provide information on the regulatory framework for private investment in the telecom sector, and the total number, service scope and market share held by the private telecom enterprises.
-- In case of unfair competition among telecom enterprises, which law is applicable: the law on telecom or the law on anti-competition? Have there been any cases in this regard?
-- Please provide information regarding the following areas:
* Policies and regulations on callback service and telephone card service;
* Policies and regulations on the interconnection among telecom networks;
* Provisions on telecom standardization and protection policies on the interests of telecom service users.
Inspection and Quarantine Measures and Technical Regulations
17. In January 2004, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (MAFF) of Japan completely suspended the importation of birds/poultry and their products originating from China due to the outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. The Chinese government has since taken effective measures of extermination, control and preemptive protection to contain the epidemic situation. It has been half a year since the last case of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza was detected in China. However, the importation of fresh and frozen poultry products from China has not yet resumed. The period of time of half a year has doubled the 90-day period stated in the bilateral agreement between China and Japan on poultry sanitary requirements.
-- Please explain the reason for the failure of the Japanese government to lift the import ban on fresh and frozen poultry products originating from China.
-- Please clarify the consistency of this practice of delay by Japan with Article 2.2, 5.4, 5.8 and Annex C 1(a) and (b) of the WTO SPS Agreement.
-- When will Japan lift the ban on importation of fresh and frozen poultry products?
18. As to the suspension of importation of cooked poultry products originating from China by Japan due to the same reason as mentioned in question No.17, the Japanese side sent 5 groups of veterinary staff to inspect 35 processing plants of cooked poultry products recommended by the Chinese side in March 2004. As a result, MAFF of Japan approved and registered the aforesaid 35 plants on 7 April 2004, which justified that both the hardware conditions and the
management system of the Chinese enterprises are in line with standards set by Japan.
The Chinese side then recommended another 122 enterprises that have also met the criteria set in the Sanitary Requirements on Cooked Poultry and Poultry Products for Export to Japan, which was mutually agreed by China and Japan. Although the Chinese side has requested the Japanese side many times to conduct on-spot inspection of those enterprises and accelerate their registration. However, up to now Japan has not sent any groups to inspect those enterprises.
The same thing is repeated by Japan regarding the inspection of Chinese processing plants of cloven hoofed animal products, which has brought negative impact on trade.
-- Please explain the reason for the repeated delay of inspection on Chinese enterprises by Japan.
-- Please explain the compliance of this practice of Japan with Articles 5.4, 5.8 and Annex C 1(a) and (b) of the WTO SPS Agreement.
19. Ministry of Health of Japan has initiated sampling inspection of cyclamate on many import foodstuffs. Recently Japan decided to further expand the products coverage of this inspection.
-- Please explain on the grounds of the above-mentioned inspection measures of Japan. Why CAC standard can not be accepted as the basis, please provide scientific justification.
-- Please advise when Japan will abolish this requirement of inspection.
20. The over strict residue level standard on agricultural products that Japan adopted and the quarantine and inspection measures taken in accordance with these standards have seriously affected the trade between Japan and other WTO members including China. According to its Food Sanitation Law, Japan adopted MRLs of 670 different pesticides, veterinarian drug and food additives in 2004, which are far stricter than the international standards of CAC and those of other developed countries. In addition, the required MRLs of the various species of the same kind of product are severely different from each other. of the MRLs for the products produced in Japan are different and less strict than those of the imported products.
-- In view of the obvious negative impact on trade when such a large amount of new standards are implemented, how does Japan ensure the consistency of such a practice with the principle provided for in Article 5.4 of the WTO SPS Agreement?
-- Please explain whether national treatment principle and Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement have been observed in this process.
-- Please explain whether any transitional period has been provided for implementation of these new standards. In accordance with the principle of special and differential treatment, does Japan plan to grant any additional transitional period for developing Members taking into account their practical difficulties?
-- China provided detailed comments on this issue in November 2004. However no substantial explanations were received to these comments in the reply from the Japanese side dated 17 December 2004. Please indicate whether Japan has taken into consideration of the comments from other WTO Members in the process of adopting a standard, and how?
21. In our point of view, application of technical barriers in Japan including residue level standards etc in many cases lacks rationality and is inconsistent with WTO principles especially the national treatment principle that SPS and TBT measures should observe. China would like to request that explanation and clarification be provided by Japan on the following cases:
(1) Japan requests that the Chiorpyifos residue level of the imported fresh and frozen spinach shall be lower than 0.01 ppm, which is not only far stricter than the CAC international standard of 0.05 ppm and that of other developed countries, but also stricter than the Chiorpyifos residue level for vegetables produced in Japan.
-- Please provide scientific evidence to explain why Japan’s requirement is far stricter than the existing CAC standard. Please explain the reason why the required Chiorpyifos residue levels of the vegetables produced in Japan are 3 ppm while that of the imported vegetable is 0.01 ppm.
(2) Japan still maintains the requirement to inspect the daminozide residue level in imported peanuts from China after 10 years of inspection without finding problems. In terms of roasted eel, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan suddenly adopted a mandatory inspection on residue of enrofloxacin from July 2003, which required the enrofloxacin residue level to be below 0.05 ppm. While Japan conducts this inspection on each and every batch of imported roasted eel, it does not conduct such inspection on its domestic products.
-- Please explain whether this practice complies with Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement and the national treatment principle? Does Japan have any plan to eliminate these mandatory inspections?
(3) Japan stipulated that, from 1 August 2003 all the plastic toys sold on the market shall not be made from the PVC material containing DEHP, and the toys for oral contacts of the suckling shall not be made from PVC containing DENP. However, Japan’s definition of the suckling refers to infants under age of 6. This ban of usage of DEHP/DIHP contained in PVC is stricter than the international common practice, which defined the suckling under age of 3. In addition, the current laboratory result has not shown any negative effects of DEHP or DIHP on human beings yet.
-- Please explain whether this ban complies with Article 2.2 of TBT Agreement. If yes, please provide the scientific basis of this requirement.
Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights
22. With respect to Japan’s patent protection system, China hopes Japan could clarify on matters as follows:
-- As far as Article 103 of current Patent Law of Japan is concerned, would Japan please indicate whether Japan enforces rule of fault or rule of no-fault for infringement determination and compensation?
-- Please advise the number of applications for patents, utilities and designs from different WTO Members’ applicants as well as application review period (i.e. time from lodging request for substantial examination till final approval). Please also provide corresponding data for Japanese applicants.
-- Please advise the number of patent infringement cases accepted by Japanese courts since last review and percentage of cases in which claimants won.
23. Japan began to enforce a new amendment to the Law of Seedling on 1 July 2003, by which Japan conducts DNA test to certain products imported from China, such as Chinese iris, to determine whether such products have offended IPR of Japan and whether to adopt applicable import restrictive measures as deem necessary.
-- Would Japan please describe the specific procedures for adopting import restrictive measures under such circumstance? And is it consistent with WTO rules to adopt import restrictive measures under such condition?
-- Would Japan please indicate whether it is rational to maintain the practice of examining by opening each and every container under the circumstance that Japan had found no problems at all in all the examinations of the rush imported from China? Does such practice comply with WTO rules? If yes, please provide the specifics.
--Dose Japan import iris from other sources other than China? If yes, does Japan have the same practice of examination of those imports with that applied to those from China?
-- Please explain the consistency of the Law of Seedling with the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.
智能问答
