Japan Federation of Economic Organizations Comment on U.S. カジノシークレット ブラックジャックent Guidelines for International Operations 1994 (Draft)

• We are afraid that the extraterritorial enforcement of a country's competition laws causes a conflict with foreign sovereign and produces a serious confusion to the business activities within or outside a country. We consider, therefore, that its application must be treated with special care. Especially, in relation with developed countries having their own established competition laws and their enforcement system, a country must abstain from the enforcement of its competition laws to the anticompetitive practice outside its territory and leave it to other countries' enforcement authority with appropriate jurisdiction.

  Further, we believe the issue of extraterritorial enforcement of a country's competition laws should be resolved, through multilateral negotiations, such as OECD or WTO.

• The Competition policies taken by a country as to the desirable state of enforcement and difference in the level of the penalty should be honored by other countries. In a case where a country's competition authority decides a conduct in question, as long as the competition laws of a country may be compatible with the U.S.antitrust laws in contents, regardless the result of enforcement of such competition laws of a country, the U.S. Agencies should refrain from the enforcement of its own antitrust laws to the matter.

• We consider that カジノシークレット ブラックジャックent Guidelines for International Operations of 1994 (hereinafter "1994 Guidelines") are intended to serve for the expansion of jurisdiction of the U.S. antitrust laws in order to promote U.S. export commerce and protect its companies in export trade. However, there are no precedents that any countries, including the United States itself, have gone this far as to the enforcement of their own competition laws, and such interpretation of jurisdiction to prescribe is not acceptable as it presents the serious fear of significant deviation from the scope of jurisdiction of a nation.

• The 1994 Guidelines do not provide clear standard for the enforcement of the U.S.antitrust laws, and therefore, are insufficient as the practical guidelines for international business transactions. The 1994 Guidelines should be, like the カジノシークレット ブラックジャックent Guidelines for International Operations of 1988 (hereinafter "1988 Guidelines"), clear as practical policy indications, providing a general analysis of jurisdiction and comity, together with the comprehensible examples showing under what circumstances a certain practice is deemed as a violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, and under what circumstances it is not. Among others, some of Illustrative Examples in the 1994 Guidelines presume subject matter jurisdiction even in a case where the exercise of personal jurisdiction is impossible in effect, giving coercive impression on foreign companies.

  We, hereby, ask for the reconsideration of the above issues, together with the practical requests and questions on the 1994 Guidelines referred to us from our member companies as attached.