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: the client, as named importer, stays liable for the accuracy of the declaration unless the error came from filing work the ACP provider was separately engaged to do, and that matters before a misclassification, a valuation error, or an incomplete filing turns into a post-clearance audit finding.
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 what 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 client as importer carries the legal responsibility for the accuracy of the declaration, including tariff classification, customs valuation, and country of origin, 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) If the client provides the product description, invoice value, or origin documentation behind the classification or valuation 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) If Aplash is separately engaged to prepare or check the declaration and makes a filing or procedural error in that specific task (a data entry mistake, a missed document, a filing deadline missed), that error falls within Aplash's engaged 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 generate the most disputes in practice. Where liability falls then depends on what was 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 a non-resident company that used ACP without setting up its own entity is not exempt 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) 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.
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.