Non-resident importers who choose ACP (Attorney for Customs Procedures / 税関事務管理人) specifically because they want to remain the named importer on their own customs declarations sometimes assume that the arrangement also shifts the compliance risk of a declaration error onto the ACP provider. It does not, and understanding why matters before a misclassification, a valuation error, or an incomplete filing turns into a post-clearance audit finding. This post sets out where liability actually sits under an ACP structure and what a non-resident importer should expect if something in the declaration turns out to be wrong.
Start With What ACP Actually Is
Under ACP, the non-resident company remains the legal importer named on the import declaration (輸入申告). Aplash does not take title to the goods and does not appear as the importer; it acts as the client's Japan-resident procedural agent before Japan Customs, a role created under the Customs Act (関税法), Article 95, specifically because a non-resident importer needs a resident point of contact for customs procedures. This is the structural feature that distinguishes ACP from IOR: under IOR, Aplash is the importer and carries importer liability; under ACP, the client is the importer and Aplash's role is procedural, not substantive.
Because the client remains the named importer throughout, the legal responsibility for the accuracy of the declaration, including tariff classification, customs valuation, and country of origin, sits with the client as importer, not with Aplash as procedural agent, unless the specific error originated from Aplash's own scope of work (for example, an error in preparing or filing the declaration that Aplash was separately engaged to handle).
Where the Line Actually Falls
The practical liability split under ACP depends on which party generated the underlying information and which party was responsible for the specific task where the error occurred:
(a) Classification or valuation information supplied by the client: if the client provides the product description, invoice value, or origin documentation and that information turns out to be wrong or incomplete, the resulting declaration error is the client's exposure as importer, regardless of who physically submitted the paperwork to customs.
(b) Filing or procedural errors within Aplash's engaged scope: if Aplash is separately engaged to prepare or check the declaration and makes an error in that specific task (a data entry mistake, a missed document, a filing deadline missed), that falls within Aplash's service scope and is addressed under the terms of the specific service agreement covering that engagement, not automatically shifted to the client.
(c) Classification judgment calls in a genuinely ambiguous case: this is the area that generates the most disputes in practice, and the answer depends on what was actually agreed and documented at the time of the classification decision, which is why confirming material regulatory positions in writing before filing matters more under ACP than it might seem at first.
What a Post-Clearance Audit Actually Looks Like Under ACP
Japan Customs conducts post-clearance audits (事後調査) on both IOR and ACP declarations, and the fact that a non-resident company used ACP rather than setting up its own entity does not exempt it from being the subject of an audit. Because the client is the named importer under ACP, any additional duty assessment, penalty, or documentation request arising from a post-clearance audit is directed at the client as importer of record, not at Aplash as procedural agent. This is a meaningful practical difference from IOR, where Aplash as the named importer would be the direct subject of such an audit. A non-resident company using ACP needs its own internal capacity, or an engaged advisor, to respond to an audit inquiry addressed to it directly, since ACP does not include standing in for the client's audit response by default; that is typically a separate, explicitly scoped engagement.
What to Confirm Before Relying on ACP
(a) Exactly what Aplash's ACP engagement covers: procedural filing agency only, or also classification review, valuation support, and documentation preparation. These are often priced and scoped separately.
(b) Who bears responsibility if information the client supplied (product description, invoice value, origin claim) turns out to be inaccurate.
(c) Whether a post-clearance audit response is included in the ACP engagement or needs to be arranged as a separate scope if one arises.
(d) Whether classification decisions made during onboarding were confirmed in writing, since a written record materially strengthens the client's position if a classification is later challenged.
Conclusion
ACP solves the structural problem of a non-resident company needing a Japan-resident point of contact for customs procedures while remaining the named importer itself. It does not transfer the legal liability for the accuracy of the declaration away from the client, except to the extent an error originated within Aplash's own separately scoped filing work. A non-resident importer relying on ACP should confirm the exact division of scope before the first declaration is filed, keep classification and valuation decisions documented in writing, and understand that a post-clearance audit, if one arises, is directed at the company as importer, not at its procedural agent.
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.