Foreign companies researching Japan market entry run into three acronyms that sound like they belong to the same family: IOR, EOR, and ACP. They do not. Each answers a different question, and none of them is a substitute for another. If you land on this page trying to work out which one applies to your situation, the short answer is that the right structure depends on whether you are moving goods into Japan, hiring a person in Japan, or both, and if goods are involved, whether you want to be named as the importer yourself. This post walks through the decision in order so you do not end up requesting the wrong service.
Start With the Right Question
Before comparing the three structures, ask what you are actually trying to do in Japan. There are really only two underlying activities that trigger a need for one of these structures:
(a) You are bringing physical goods into Japan (equipment, parts, inventory, demo units) without a Japan legal entity of your own.
(b) You are engaging a worker who will be based in Japan, again without a Japan legal entity of your own.
Some companies need only one. Many companies doing both product distribution and local hiring need two separate structures running in parallel, not one combined product. There is no single service that covers "goods plus people" as a package, because the underlying legal frameworks (Customs Act (関税法) on one side, labor and social insurance law on the other) do not overlap.
If You Are Bringing Goods Into Japan: IOR or ACP
Once you know goods are involved, the next question is narrower and more consequential: do you want to appear as the importer of record yourself, or do you want someone else to take on that role and its liability?
This is where IOR and ACP diverge, and it is important to be precise here because the two are frequently confused. They are not two flavors of the same import service. They are structurally distinct answers to opposite preferences.
IOR (Importer of Record): Someone Else Becomes the Importer
Under an IOR arrangement, Aplash itself becomes the legal importer named on the import declaration (輸入申告). Aplash purchases the goods from the overseas seller, clears customs in its own name, and re-sells to the Japan buyer. Aplash takes title to the goods, bears full importer liability, and issues a qualified invoice (適格請求書) that enables the Japan buyer to recover input tax. This is the right answer when a non-resident company wants to be entirely absent from the customs declaration and wants Aplash to carry the importer role and its associated obligations.
ACP (Attorney for Customs Procedures / 税関事務管理人): You Remain the Importer
Under an ACP arrangement, your company remains the legal importer named on the import declaration. Aplash does not take title to the goods and does not appear as the importer. Instead, Aplash acts as your Japan-resident procedural agent before Japan Customs, under the Customs Act (関税法) provision that requires a non-resident importer to appoint a resident agent for customs purposes. ACP is available only when your company is genuinely non-resident in Japan (no Japanese address, residence, or office). This is the right answer when you want to keep your own name on the customs record, for example to preserve visibility into your import history, maintain a direct compliance record, or avoid a resale layer.
Why These Two Are Never Interchangeable
IOR and ACP should never be presented, or thought of, as two options for the same need. They serve opposite preferences on the single question that matters: who is named as the importer. If you want someone else to be the importer, that is IOR. If you want to remain the importer yourself but need a Japan-resident agent to interface with customs, that is ACP. A company that already has "either IOR or ACP, whichever you recommend" as its framing has usually not yet decided which outcome it wants, and that decision needs to happen before a structure can be selected. For a deeper walkthrough of this specific comparison, see the dedicated IOR vs ACP post referenced below.
If You Are Hiring in Japan: EOR (Employer of Record)
If your Japan activity involves engaging a person who will work in Japan, whether as a country manager, a sales representative, or a technical hire, the goods-side question above does not apply at all. The relevant structure is EOR in its Employer of Record sense: a Japan-resident entity becomes the legal employer of the worker, running payroll, enrolling the worker in social insurance, and handling tax withholding, while your company directs the worker's day-to-day duties under a separate services agreement. No Japan entity of your own is required.
A naming caution. EOR is used in two unrelated senses depending on context. In trade and customs contexts, EOR can mean Exporter of Record, an export-compliance role distinct from the import-side services above. In a hiring context, EOR means Employer of Record. This post addresses Employer of Record because that is the sense relevant to market entry and headcount decisions. If you encounter EOR discussed in relation to export declarations or export licensing, that is the other meaning and it belongs to a separate compliance conversation entirely.
Putting the Three Together: A Simple Decision Path
Work through the following in order:
(a) Are you bringing physical goods into Japan, hiring a person in Japan, or both? If goods only, skip to (b). If hiring only, skip to (c). If both, you need two separate structures running in parallel.
(b) For goods: do you want to be named as the importer yourself, or do you want someone else to take on that role and its liability? Naming yourself points to ACP (subject to the non-resident prerequisite). Handing off the role points to IOR.
(c) For hiring: EOR (Employer of Record) is the answer regardless of what you decided on the goods side. It does not compete with, replace, or combine with IOR or ACP; it solves a different legal problem under a different body of law.
A company selling equipment into Japan while also placing a local sales hire will typically need both an import structure (IOR or ACP, chosen per the logic in (b)) and an EOR arrangement for the hire. These run as two separate engagements with two separate legal bases, not as a single bundled product, because the Customs Act framework governing import declarations has nothing to do with the labor and social insurance framework governing employment.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
A few patterns show up repeatedly among companies researching this decision. First, treating IOR and ACP as interchangeable "we'll take whichever you recommend" options rather than as answers to opposite preferences on the importer-of-record question. Second, assuming that having an EOR arrangement in place for a local hire somehow also covers import compliance, or vice versa; the two are unconnected. Third, confusing Employer of Record with Exporter of Record because both compress to the same three-letter acronym; if a conversation about EOR suddenly involves export licensing or export declarations, you have likely crossed into the other meaning of the term.
Conclusion
There is no single "best" structure among IOR, EOR, and ACP because they are not competing for the same job. IOR and ACP both address non-resident companies moving goods into Japan, but they answer the importer-of-record question in opposite directions. EOR addresses hiring a worker in Japan and operates under an entirely different legal framework, applicable regardless of what the goods-side decision looks like. Identify which underlying activity (goods, hiring, or both) applies to your situation first, then apply the narrower questions above to land on the correct structure or structures.
This article is informational only and does not constitute legal, tax, or regulatory advice. Consult a qualified advisor before acting on the content. Last updated: 2026-07.