Many Philippine manufacturers in electronics components, automotive parts, and machinery reach the Japan market through a local intermediary or distributor who appears as importer of record on the import declaration (輸入申告). That arrangement has always carried a structural question: does the intermediary actually hold the legal position it occupies on the customs paperwork. Since Japan Customs' October 2023 clarification on disposition rights (処分権限), that question has sharpened into a real post-clearance audit exposure. This article covers the Attorney for Customs Procedures (税関事務管理人, ACP) structure that lets a Philippine entity be named importer of record without opening a Japan branch or subsidiary, how the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (日・フィリピン経済連携協定, JPEPA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (地域的な包括的経済連携協定, RCEP) interact for origin claims, and how the ACP registration stack fits together at a structural level.
The October 2023 Disposition Rights Clarification
The Customs Act (関税法) has long required that the party named as importer be the party who actually bears duty liability and holds genuine disposition rights (処分権限) over the goods, under Article 6 (duty payment liability) and Article 67 (declaration and disposition authority). Japan Customs' October 2023 clarification made explicit what those articles had always implied: a nominal buyer or an invoicing intermediary who never takes real commercial control of the goods, price risk, or resale decision does not qualify as the importer, regardless of whose name is on the invoice.
For a Philippine manufacturer selling into Japan through a local distributor arrangement, this matters directly. If the distributor invoices the Japan buyer, takes brief legal title, but never actually decides pricing, redirection, or disposal of the goods independent of the manufacturer's instruction, the named-importer position is exposed to a post-clearance audit (事後調査) finding that the wrong party was declared. That exposure sits with the distributor as the declared importer, but it also disrupts the manufacturer's supply chain the moment Japan Customs questions the declaration retroactively.
This is a structural fact about how Japan Customs reads disposition rights, not a claim about any specific distributor's conduct. Whether a given arrangement is exposed depends on the actual commercial substance of that relationship and should be assessed case by case.
Attorney for Customs Procedures Under Article 95
Article 95 of the Customs Act (関税法第95条) provides the mechanism that resolves this exposure without requiring the Philippine manufacturer to incorporate in Japan. Under this framework, a non-resident principal, meaning an entity with no address, residence, or office in Japan, is named importer of record directly on the import declaration, while a Japan-resident agent, the Attorney for Customs Procedures (税関事務管理人), handles the procedural interface with Japan Customs on the principal's behalf.
The legal effect is precise: the Philippine manufacturer remains the importer. Aplash, acting as ACP, does not take title to the goods and does not become the importer. The ACP appointment is a one-time notification (税関事務管理人届出書) filed per customs office, separate from any per-shipment import declaration and separate from the commercial contract governing the engagement. This appointment cannot be filed retroactively, so the eligibility check and the document pack must be complete before any shipment is contemplated.
This is a different legal structure from an Importer of Record (IOR) arrangement, where a Japan-resident entity takes title and is itself named on the declaration. The two are never interchangeable: under ACP, the Philippine manufacturer is the importer; under IOR, the Japan-resident party is the importer. For the foundational appointment sequence in full, see Japan ACP Registration and Setup Guide.
JPEPA and RCEP: How the Two Agreements Interact
Philippine exporters to Japan sit in an unusual position: two overlapping preferential trade agreements are available on the same trade lane. The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) is a bilateral agreement that has been in force since 2008. RCEP is the broader regional agreement covering Japan, the Philippines, and other ASEAN and Asia-Pacific members, and it entered into force for the Philippines in 2023.
Where both agreements cover a given product, an exporter generally has the choice of which agreement's preferential origin claim to invoke, and the more favorable outcome depends on the applicable rule of origin, the cumulation provisions available under each agreement, and the specific tariff line in question. This article does not state which agreement produces a better outcome for any specific product category; any duty rate, origin threshold, or tariff line detail must be confirmed against the current JPEPA and RCEP legal texts and the Japan Customs tariff schedule rather than assumed from general description.
The point that connects this back to the ACP structure is procedural rather than tariff-rate related: origin certification runs through the exporter, but the importer's structural position affects whether the origin claim can be cleanly supported. When a distributor stands between the manufacturer and Japan Customs as a nominal importer, invoice chains, certificates of origin, and the manufacturer's own export documentation can become disconnected from the import declaration actually filed in Japan. Under ACP, the Philippine manufacturer is the named importer on both the export side and the import side, which keeps the documentation chain in one hand and reduces the risk that an origin claim is challenged for a chain-of-custody reason unrelated to the goods' actual origin.
For a comparable multi-agreement overlap for a manufacturer's own production base, see Japan ACP for Vietnamese Manufacturers.
The Three ACP Registrations
Becoming the named importer under Article 95 solves the customs-declaration problem. It does not, by itself, solve the consumption tax (消費税, JCT) recovery problem. A non-resident importer who stops at the bare ACP appointment pays import JCT at clearance with no mechanism to recover it. Recovering that JCT as an input credit requires three registrations, in sequence:
(a) ACP notification. The non-resident principal appoints a Japan-resident Attorney for Customs Procedures, filed with the customs office where shipments will clear. Without it, the non-resident cannot be named importer at all.
(b) Tax Representative appointment. The non-resident separately appoints a Tax Representative (納税管理人) to handle JCT matters arising from its import activity. This is a distinct appointment from the ACP notification. Without it, the non-resident has no standing to file a JCT return in Japan.
(c) Qualified Invoice Issuer registration. If the non-resident conducts B2B sales in Japan, such as selling components onward to a Japan-based assembler or distributor after import, it registers as a Qualified Invoice Issuer (適格請求書発行事業者) under the Qualified Invoice System (インボイス制度). This is what makes the JCT paid at import creditable against output JCT on the non-resident's own domestic sales. Without this step, import JCT paid at clearance becomes a stranded cost rather than a timing difference.
All three registrations are structurally distinct legal appointments serving different functions: customs procedural authority, tax filing standing, and invoice-based input credit eligibility. Skipping any one of them breaks the chain at that point.
ACP vs. IOR: A Practical Checklist for Philippine Manufacturers
ACP and IOR are mutually exclusive legal roles for the same shipment: under ACP the non-resident principal is the importer; under IOR the Japan-resident party is the importer. The following questions help identify which fits a given manufacturer's situation.
(a) Does the manufacturer already sell to Japan buyers under its own commercial terms, retaining title and bearing transaction risk through the point of sale? If so, it likely already holds the disposition rights the October 2023 standard requires, and ACP lets it appear on the declaration in that capacity.
(b) Does the manufacturer want to control its own transaction price as the customs valuation basis, and manage its own origin documentation across JPEPA or RCEP, rather than depending on an intermediary? ACP preserves both.
(c) Does the manufacturer instead prefer to be removed from the Japan import chain entirely, with a Japan-side party taking title and handling the declaration in its own name? That is the IOR structure, where Aplash purchases from the manufacturer and resells to the Japan buyer.
(d) Does the manufacturer already route through a Japan distributor whose commercial substance as importer is unclear? That relationship's importer position should be assessed before assuming the status quo is safe under the current disposition rights standard.
For a comparable regional overlap involving the same underlying decision, see Japan ACP for Southeast Asian Manufacturers.
Conclusion
The October 2023 clarification did not create a new law; it sharpened enforcement of a disposition-rights standard that Articles 6 and 67 of the Customs Act already established. For a Philippine manufacturer currently routing Japan sales through a distributor whose commercial substance as importer is unclear, the exposure is real but addressable. The Attorney for Customs Procedures structure under Article 95 lets the manufacturer take the importer position directly, without a Japan subsidiary, while JPEPA and RCEP remain available in parallel for the underlying origin claim. The three registrations, ACP notification, Tax Representative appointment, and Qualified Invoice Issuer registration, are what convert that structural position into an actual JCT recovery outcome rather than a stranded cost.
This article is informational only and does not constitute legal, tax, or regulatory advice. Origin eligibility under JPEPA or RCEP is product-specific and depends on the applicable rules of origin for the relevant tariff classification; no rate or threshold is asserted in this article. Consult a qualified advisor before acting on the content. Last updated: 2026-07.