  
  
WT/DS590/4  
 
19 June 2020  
(20-4341) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
 
JAPAN – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF  
PRODUCTS AND TECHNOL OGY TO KOREA  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
The following communication, dated 18 June 2020 , from the delegation of Korea  to the Chairperson 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. On 11 September 2019, the Government of the Republic of Korea ("Korea") requested 
consultations with the Government of Japan ("Japan") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), 
Article  XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 24 of the 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation ("TFA") , Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade -Related Investment 
Measures ("TRIMs Agreement"), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services 
("GATS"), and Article 64.1 of the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Prop erty Rights 
("TRIPS Agreement")  regarding Japan 's amended export licensing policies and procedures imposing 
certain licensing requirements on exports of fluorinated polyimide, resist polymers, and hydrogen 
fluoride,  as well as their related technologies (" subject products and technologies"), when destined 
for Korea.   
2. The subject  products in question (i.e. fluorinated polyimide,1 resist polymers,2 and hydrogen 
fluoride,3 as specified under Japanese export control regulations) are products primarily used in t he 
production of semi -conductors and of displays for smartphones and TVs.  The subject technologies 
in question include "technology"4 associated with the design, manufacture or use of hydrogen 
 
1 Ordinance of the Ministry Specifying Goods and Technologies Pursuant to Provisions of the Appended 
Table 1 of the Export Trade Control Order and the Appended Table of the Foreign Exchange Order (Ordinance 
of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry  No. 49 of 1991), Kanpou (Official Gazette) Gougai No. 151 
(14 October 1991), Article 4(xiv)(b).  This product is classified within Export Control Classification Number 
("ECCN") 1C009.b under the US Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), to which the Ja panese export 
control regulation refers.  
2 Ordinance of the Ministry Specifying Goods and Technologies Pursuant to Provisions of the Appended 
Table 1 of the Export Trade Control Order and the Appended Table of the Foreign Exchange Order (Ordinance 
of the M inistry of International Trade and Industry No. 49 of 1991), Kanpou (Official Gazette) Gougai No. 151 
(14 October 1991), Article 6(xix).  These products are broadly classified within ECCN 3C002 under the US EAR, 
to which the Japanese export control regulati on refers.  
3 There is no additional definition  of hydrogen fluoride under Japan's export control regulation, but this 
product (also identified under C.A.S. #7664 -39-3) is classified within ECCN 1C350.d.10 under the US EAR.  
Ordinance of the Ministry Specify ing Goods and Technologies Pursuant to Provisions of the Appended Table 1 of 
the Export Trade Control Order and the Appended Table of the Foreign Exchange Order (Ordinance of the 
Ministry of International Trade and Industry No. 49 of 1991), Kanpou (Officia l Gazette) Gougai No. 151 
(14 October 1991), Article 2(1)(i)(f).  
4 METI has defined the term "technology" to mean "specific information necessary for the design, 
manufacture or use of goods. This information may be provided in the form of technical data or  technical 
assistance."  Notification (tsuutatsu) on licensed technology transfer  conducted in conformity with the 
provisions of Article 25(1) of the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act and Article 17(2) of the Foreign 
Exchange Order (dated 21 December 1 992, Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau No. 492 of 1992) ( 外国為
替及び外国貿易法第２５条第１項及び外国為替令第１７条第２項の規定に基づき許可を要する技術を提供する取引又は行為に
ついて ) at 1(3)(a), 
https://www.met i.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/t10kaisei/ekimu_tutatu140814.pdf . WT/DS590/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  fluoride5 and "technology" associated with the design and manufa cture of fluorinated polyimide6 and 
resist polymers,7 including but not limited to technical data such as diagrams, user manuals and 
design specifications, and technical assistance such as the provision of know -how, training, 
consulting services and other related services.  
3. Consultations  were held on 11 October 2019 and 19 November 2019 with a view to reaching 
a mutually satisfactory solution.  However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute.  
4. Therefore , Korea requests, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and  6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the 
GATT  1994, Article 24.8 of the TFA, Article 8 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article XXIII of the GATS, 
and Article 64.1 of the TRIPS Agreement , that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to 
examine this matter.  
5. Pursuan t to Article 6.2 of the DSU, Korea proceeds below to identify the specific measure at 
issue and to provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint.  
I.  IDENTIFICATION O F THE MEASURE  
6. On 1 July 2019, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of  Japan ("METI") announced8 
that it would apply more stringent licensing requirements and procedures to the export or transfer 
of the subject products and technologies when destined for Korea, based on Article 25(1) and Article 
48(1) of the Foreign Exchange  and Foreign Trade Act of Japan ("1 July 2019 announcement").9 In 
accordance with the 1 July 2019 announcement, with effect from 4 July 2019, Japan thus imposed 
unduly stringent export licensing requirements and procedures on the subject products and 
techn ologies whenever exported to Korea ("Amended Export Licensing Requirements ").  
7. The Amended  Export Licensing Requirements were initially implemented by Japan mainly 
through certain amendments to the following four notifications:10 
• Notification  (tsuutatsu ) on the implementation of the Export Trade Control Order (dated 
6 November, 1987, Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 322 of 1987 
/ Export Caution No. 11 of 1987);11 
• Notification  (tsuutatsu ) on licensed technology transfer condu cted in conformity with the 
provisions of Article 25(1) of the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act and Article 17(2) 
of the Foreign Exchange Order (dated 21 December 1992, Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Bureau No. 492 of 1992);12 
 
5 Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on instructions for bulk licenses (25 February 2005, Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 23 February 2005 / Export Caution No. 7 of  2005), Appended Table B, 
Article 3.  
6 Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on instructions for bulk licenses (25 February 2005, Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 23 February 2005 / Export Caution No. 7 of 2005), Appended Table B, 
Article 5.  
7 Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on instructions for bulk licenses (25 February 2005, Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 23 February 2005 / Export Caution No. 7 of 2005), Appended Table B, 
Article 7.  
8 METI, "Update of METI's licensing policies and procedures on exports of controlled items to the 
Republic of Korea" (1 July 2019), https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2019/0701_001.html . 
9 Kanpou (Official Ga zette) Gougai No. 135 (1 December 1949).  
10 METI's Security Export Licensing Division, "Regarding the Notification ( tsuutatsu ) to amend parts of 
notifications including the 'Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on the implementation of the Export Trade Control Order'" 
(1 July 2019), https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_gaiyo.pdf ; Notification 
(tsuutatsu ) to amend parts of notifications including the 'Notifica tion ( tsuutatsu ) on the implementation of the 
Export Trade Control Order' (1 July 2019, Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 2 of 25 
June 2019 / Export Caution No. 28 of 2019), 
https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_jyobun.pdf ; and Notification ( tsuutatsu ) to 
amend part of 'Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on instructions for bulk licenses' (20 December 2019, Trade and 
Economic Cooperati on Bureau Notification No. 1 of 17 December 2019 / Export Caution No. 52 of 2019), 
https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/191220.pdf . 
11 https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_1.pdf . 
12 https://www.meti.go .jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_2.pdf . WT/DS590/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • Notification  (tsuutatsu ) on instructions  for bulk licenses (25 February 2005, Trade and 
Economic Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 23 February 2005 / Export Caution No. 
7 of 2005);13 and 
• Notification  (tsuutatsu ) on documents and instructions  for application for export licen se, 
service transaction license and export license for specific recorded media (2 April 2012, 
Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 23 March 2012 / Export 
Caution No. 18 of 2012).14 
8. Pursuant  to the 1 July 2019 announcement , Japan has removed Korea from the export -control 
category "Region I ①" and placed it alone in the newly established category "Region Ri". In effect, 
this resulted in five primary changes to Japan 's export control laws and procedures in relation to the 
subje ct products and technologies: (i) exporters could no longer obtain or use "bulk licenses" (e.g. 
"general bulk licenses", "special general bulk licenses" and "special bulk licenses" that involve 
simplified export authorization procedures) when exporting the  subject products and technologies 
to Korea ; (ii) all existing "bulk licenses" for the export of the subject products and technologies to 
Korea were effectively terminated; (iii) exporters have to apply for individual licenses when seeking 
to export the su bject products and technologies to Korea; (iv) METI 's Security Export Licensing 
Division is exclusively in charge of the administration of the relevant licenses for the export of the 
subject products and technologies to Korea; and (v) METI subjects  exporte rs seeking to export the 
subject products and technologies to Korea to unduly complex and burdensome export formalities .15 
9. Applications  for individual export licenses are subject to a significant number of requirements 
and are placed under increased scrutin y, giving rise to unnecessary delays, uncertainties, costs, and 
other serious restrictions to the exportation of the subject products and technologies to Korea.  The 
Amended Export Licensing Requirements  also restrict other forms of international trade, inc luding 
investments, licensing or transfer of intellectual properties, and supply of certain services relating 
to the subject products and technologies.  
10. When  initially announcing the Amended Export Licensing Requirements , Japan stated that it 
had "recently found that certain sensitive items have been exported to Korea with inadequate 
management by companies",16 and that it was thus necessary to apply more stringent export 
licensing requirements and procedures in relation to these products and their related te chnologies.17 
However, Korea considers that the restrictive changes made to Japan 's export control requirements 
vis-à-vis the subject products and technologies when exported to Korea were based on political 
considerations unrelated to any legitimate export control considerations connected to Korea or the 
subject products and technologies.18  
11. In Korea's  view, the Amended Export Licensing Requirements constitute a politically -
motivated, disguised restriction on trade.  
 
13 https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_3.pdf ; 
https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/191220.pdf . 
14 https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_4.pdf . 
15 For hydrogen fluoride, simplified export formalities applicable to exports destined for countries placed 
in the category "Region I ①" are no longer applicable to exports destined for Korea.  For fluorinated polyimide 
and resist polymers, simplified export fo rmalities applicable to exports destined for countries placed in the 
category "Region To ①" are no longer applicable to exports destined for Korea for the sole reason that Korea is 
now placed in the category "Region Ri". 
16 METI, "Update of METI's licensing policies and procedures on exports of controlled items to the 
Republic of Korea" (1 July 2019), https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2019/0701_001.ht ml; METI's Security 
Export Licensing Division, "Regarding the Notification ( tsuutatsu ) to amend parts of notifications including the 
'Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on the implementation of the Export Trade Control Order'" (1 July 2019),  
https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/190701_gaiyo.pdf.  
17 METI's Security Export Licensing Division, "Regarding the Notification ( tsuutatsu ) to amend parts of 
notificatio ns including the 'Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on the implementation of the Export Trade Control Order'" 
(1 July 2019), https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/law_document/t utatu/190701_gaiyo.pdf . 
18 Reuters, "Japan's Seko says export curbs for S. Korea not in violation of WTO rules" (2 July 2019), 
https://www.reuters.com/article/southkorea -japan -laborers/japans -seko-says-export -curbs -for-skorea -not-in-
violation -of-wto-rules-idUSL4N2422V4 . WT/DS590/4  
 
- 4 - 
 
  12. On 20 December  2019, MET I announced a slight amendment of the Amended Export Licensing 
Requirements  ("20 December 2019 announcement"),19 limitedly allowing the use of "special bulk 
licenses" for certain qualified exporters exporting resist polymers to particular customers in Korea . 
To obtain these licenses, an exporter must first establish a history of repeated and continued exports 
to a particular customer over a period of time with individual export licenses.  It remains that no 
form of "bulk license" is available with respect to exports of fluorinated polyimide and hydrogen 
fluoride, and their related technologies, destined for Korea.  
13. The implication  of the 20 December 2019 announcement is further limited in that (i) "general 
bulk licenses" and "special general bulk licenses" sti ll remain unavailable even with respect to exports 
of resist polymers destined for Korea; (ii) even "special bulk licenses" are not available for the 
transfer of certain technologies related to resist polymers; (iii) exporters that do not qualify for 
"spec ial bulk licenses" are still required to apply for individual licenses when ever seeking to export 
resist polymers to Korea; and (iv)  obtaining "special bulk licenses" is more burdensome when 
compared to obtaining other "bulk licenses" such as "general bulk  licenses" in terms of documentary 
and procedural requirements.  
14. The Amended Export Licensing Requirements imposed on the subject products and 
technologies in accordance with the 1 July 2019 announcement, as further amended in accordance 
with the 20 Decembe r 2019 announcement, are the measure being challenged by Korea 
("measure").   
15. This request  for establishment of a panel also concerns any implementation or effect of any 
modification, replacement or amendment to the measure identified above, and any closely  connected 
subsequent measures.  
II. LEGAL BASIS  
16. Korea  considers that the measure is inconsistent with various obligations of Japan under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the GATT 1994, the TFA, the TRIMs 
Agreement, the GAT S and the TRIPS Agreement ("covered agreements") . Specifically, the measure 
is inconsistent with:  
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994  because, with respect to all rules and formalities in connection 
with exportation, Japan fails to accord immediately and unconditionally to the export of 
the subject products and technologies when destined for Korea any advantage, favor, 
privilege or immu nity granted to the export of the like products when destined for certain 
other WTO Members.  In particular, Japan has generally disallowed the use of "bulk 
licenses" and requires individual licenses for the export of the subject products and 
technologies w hen destined for Korea, while not imposing similar restrictions on the 
exportation of the like products to certain other WTO Members;  
• Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994  because the measure constitutes a restriction, other than a 
duty, tax or other charge, that  is made effective through licensing requirements on the 
exportation or sale for export of the subject products and technologies when destined for 
Korea;  
• Articles XIII:1 and XIII:5 of the GATT 1994  because the measure imposes restrictions on 
the exportatio n of the subject products and technologies when destined for Korea while 
the exportation of the subject products and technologies to all third countries is not 
similarly restricted . In particular, Japan has generally disallowed the use of "bulk licenses" 
and requires individual licenses for the export of the subject products and technologies 
when destined for Korea, while the exportation of the like products to certain other WTO 
Members is not similarly restricted;  
• Article VIII.1 of the GATT 1994 and Articl e 10.1 of the TFA  because Japan failed to 
minimize the complexity of requirements and formalities in connection with exportation, 
and to minimize the trade restrictive effect of the measure affecting exportation.  In 
 
19 Notification ( tsuutatsu ) to amend part of 'Notification ( tsuutatsu ) on instructio ns for bulk licenses' (20 
December 2019, Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau Notification No. 1 of 17 December 2019 / Export 
Caution No. 52 of 2019), https://www.meti.go.jp /policy/anpo/law_document/tutatu/191220.pdf . WT/DS590/4  
 
- 5 - 
 
  particular, prior to the adoption of the  measure, Japan failed to review and assess whether 
the requirements and formalities it was going to impose on exports of the subject products 
and technologies to Korea were not more trade restrictive and complex than necessary.  
Also, Japan failed to ensur e that its formalities and documentation requirements were as 
fast and efficient as possible, in light of the existence of less trade -restrictive alternatives;  
• Articles X:1 and X:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TFA  because Japan fails to 
administ er its laws, regulations, decisions, and rulings of general application relating to 
the restrictions on exports in a uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner.  Furthermore, 
Japan implemented the measure only three days after the 1 July 2019 announcement  
without providing  Korea and other interested parties an adequate opportunity to comment 
and hold consultations.  In doing so, Japan also failed to publish or make publicly available 
these amendments as early as possible before their entry into force in order to enable 
traders to become acquainted with them;  
• Articles 7.7 and 8.1 of the TFA  because Japan fails to provide additional trade facilitation 
measures for operators based on objective criteria that are not applied so as to afford or 
create arbitrary or u njustifiable discrimination between operators where the same 
conditions prevail; and fails to ensure that its agencies responsible for border controls and 
procedures cooperate and coordinate their activities with Korea to facilitate trade;  
• Article 2 of the  TRIMs Agreement and paragraph 2 of the Annex of the TRIMs Agreement 
because  the measure constitutes an investment measure related to trade in goods that is 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• Articles 3.1 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement  because,  with regard to the protection of 
intellectual property, Japan fails to accord to the nationals of Korea treatment no less 
favorable than that accorded to the nationals of Japan and the nationals of certain other 
WTO Members.  In particular, Japan creates c ertain obstacles for the transfer of the 
technologies related to the subject products with regard to the nationals of Korea;  
• Articles VI:1 and VI:5 of the GATS , because Japan fails to administer its laws, regulations, 
decisions, and rulings of general appl ication affecting trade in services in a reasonable, 
objective, and impartial manner.  The measure also nullifies or impairs Japan 's specific 
commitments  in a manner more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the 
relevant service, or in a manne r that constitutes a restriction on the supply of the relevant 
service; and  
• Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  
because Japan, through the implementation of the measure, fails to ensure the conformity 
of its laws, regulations , and administrative procedures with its obligations under the 
covered agreements.  
III. CONCLUSION  
17. In light of the foregoing, Korea considers  that Japan 's measure on the subject products and 
technologies nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Korea directly or indirectly under the covered 
agreements, or impede the objectives of these agreements.   
18. Therefore , Korea respectfully requests that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to 
examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
19. Korea  further asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the agenda 
of the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 29 June 2020.  
 
__________  