Wto Rejects Us Charges In Kodak Vs Fuji Case

Image
BSCAL
Last Updated : Dec 08 1997 | 12:00 AM IST

A World Trade Organisation panel has comprehensively rejected US charges that Japan's photofilm market is rigged against foreign competitors, in a bitter dispute that has pitted Eastman Kodak of the US against its Japanese rival, Fuji Film.

The panel's interim report, still officially confidential, was last night denounced as ''totally unacceptable'' by George Fisher, Kodak's chairman.

He said the verdict ''ignores market reality''. He said: ''The US market is open and Japan's market is closed. The world's financial markets recognise this; it is too bad the WTO does not.''

Also Read

Minoru Ohnishi, chairman of Fujifilm, praised the ruling and said: ''Imported film is widely available and competitively priced in Japan - a fact which the WTO have now confirmed, if the decision is as we understand it.''

The US argued that various laws and measures taken by the Japanese government over 30 years aimed to neutralise the effects of tariff cuts on photofilm imports by bolstering Fuji's position in the domestic market. Kodak has about 10 per cent of the Japanese market, much lower than its share in the world market.

The measures included: encouragement for exclusive wholesaling arrangements, now dominated by Fuji; restrictions on discount stores and supermarkets that the US said were more likely to sell foreign goods; and strict controls on price competition and premiums that have allegedly stopped Kodak from using price-cutting and promotions.

However, the three-person panel of trade experts said the US had not demonstrated that its WTO rights had been impaired. Fuji has argued that Kodak's problems in Japan are the result of poor marketing and says it faces barriers in the US, where it has some 12 per cent of film and paper sales.

The interim report went last night to the US and Japanese governments, and to the European Union, which is a third party in the case. It has still to be finalised, although this is unlikely to change the verdict. The US can appeal, a process which could last several months.

Charlene Barshefsky, US trade representative, said last night: ''The ruling sidesteps the real issues in this case and instead focuses on narrow technical issues. we will evaluate the broad range of options available to us,'' including direct unilateral action.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Dec 08 1997 | 12:00 AM IST

Next Story