When Does an Attempt to Import Stimulants into Japan Become a Completed Crime? Understanding "Import" and Critical Legal Timelines

Japan's legal framework imposes exceptionally severe penalties for the importation of stimulants, reflecting a zero-tolerance policy towards substances that pose a significant threat to public health and safety. For individuals and entities involved in international trade and logistics, understanding precisely when an act crosses the threshold from an attempt to a completed crime of importation is crucial. This article delves into the legal definition of "import" under Japan's Stimulant Control Act and clarifies the critical junctures, known as kisui jiki (既遂時期 – time of completion), that determine when the offense is considered legally finalized.

Severe Penalties for Stimulant Importation: A Legislative Priority

The stringent penalties for importing stimulants into Japan are not arbitrary; they are a direct response to the perceived danger these substances represent. Japanese law views the act of importation, much like the illegal manufacture of stimulants, as a primary offense that introduces new illicit substances into the country, thereby creating the very source of potential abuse and societal harm. If stimulants are not brought into the country, subsequent offenses like distribution, possession, and use cannot occur.

Over the years, the Japanese Diet has progressively strengthened these penalties through various amendments to the Stimulant Control Act, notably in Showa 29 (1954), Showa 48 (1973), and Heisei 2 (1990). Currently, the statutory punishments for stimulant importation are among the most severe under the Act, often on par with those for importing heroin. This equivalency underscores the legislative intent to treat stimulant importation as a matter of grave national concern. The rationale is that without such acts of introducing drugs into the domestic environment, the chain of trafficking and abuse would be broken at its origin.

Defining "Import" (Yunyu) Under the Stimulant Control Act

Interestingly, the Stimulant Control Act itself does not provide an explicit statutory definition of the term "import" (yunyu 輸入). Consequently, its meaning has been shaped through judicial interpretation and legal scholarship. In a general sense, "import" refers to the act of bringing goods from a foreign country into the territorial jurisdiction of Japan. The core legal question then becomes: what constitutes Japan's "territory" or "boundary" for the purposes of this Act, and at what precise moment is an item considered to have been "brought in," thereby completing the crime?

For land-based importation, a scenario not practically relevant for Japan given its geography, legal precedent (e.g., Supreme Court, July 6, 1933 (Showa 8)) suggests that the crime is completed upon crossing the national land border.

However, for sea or air routes, which are the primary methods of illicit importation, several theories have been debated. These include the "Territorial Waters/Airspace Theory" (completion upon entry into Japanese waters/airspace), the "Unloading Possible Theory" (completion when unloading becomes possible), the "Arrival Theory" (completion upon arrival at a port/airport), and the "Customs Line Theory" (completion upon clearing customs formalities).

Despite these various interpretations, the prevailing view adopted by Japanese courts is the "Landing/Unloading Theory" (陸揚げ説 - rikuage-setsu). This theory was notably affirmed by the Supreme Court of Japan in a judgment on September 29, 1983 (Showa 58). The Court held that an import crime under the Stimulant Control Act is complete when stimulants are unloaded from a vessel into a bonded area, or when they are taken off an aircraft that has landed at a customs airport. This approach is favored due to its relative clarity, ease of identification for enforcement purposes, and its alignment with the Act's aim of preventing harm from the moment stimulants physically enter the Japanese landmass.

Completion of Import by Vessel: The "Landing" Threshold

For stimulants imported by sea, the "Landing Theory" dictates that the crime of importation is completed at the moment the stimulants are physically moved from the vessel onto Japanese land—i.e., when they are unloaded.

The Supreme Court, in a decision on November 14, 2001 (Heisei 13), further elaborated on this principle. It stated that when stimulants are brought into Japan by ship from outside its territorial waters, the import offense reaches completion upon their unloading onto Japanese territory. The Court reasoned that the risk of public health harm due to stimulant abuse significantly increases at this specific point.

An important implication of this theory is that if stimulants are discovered on a ship that has docked in a Japanese port before any unloading has commenced, the offense may only constitute an attempted importation, not a completed one. A Tokyo District Court case from April 13, 2000 (Heisei 12), illustrates an instance treated as an attempted import under such circumstances.

The Status of Bonded Areas (Hozei Chiiki)

A critical aspect of the "Landing Theory" concerns bonded areas (保税地域 - hozei chiiki). These are customs-controlled zones where goods can be stored, processed, or transshipped without immediately being subject to import duties or domestic regulations. Under the Stimulant Control Act, the unloading of stimulants into a bonded area located within Japanese territory is sufficient to complete the crime of importation.

This interpretation differs from how "import" might be understood under customs law, where the term often implies that goods must be removed from the bonded area and enter domestic circulation. The rationale for the Stimulant Control Act's stricter interpretation lies in its distinct legislative purpose: to prevent the public health dangers associated with stimulant abuse. This danger is deemed to materialize as soon as the drugs are physically present on Japanese land, irrespective of their customs status or whether they are intended for onward transit to another country. Therefore, even if the initial intent was not to introduce the stimulants into the domestic Japanese market from the bonded area (e.g., if the plan was for re-export), the act of landing them within that bonded area on Japanese soil finalizes the import offense under the Stimulant Control Act.

Completion of Import by Aircraft: Removal to the Ground

The "Landing/Unloading Theory" applies similarly to stimulants imported by air. The crime is generally considered complete when the stimulants are removed from the aircraft and brought onto Japanese ground. This can occur, for example, when air cargo containing stimulants is unloaded, or when a passenger or crew member carrying stimulants disembarks from the plane onto the tarmac or into the airport terminal.

The aforementioned Supreme Court judgment of September 29, 1983 (Showa 58), explicitly covers both maritime and aerial importation scenarios, stating that the crime is complete with the unloading from a vessel into a bonded area or the removal from an aircraft at a customs airport. A subsequent Supreme Court decision on December 21, 1983 (Showa 58), concerning cannabis importation, reaffirmed this principle, holding that completion occurs upon unloading from an aircraft at a customs airport or from a ship into a bonded area.

To illustrate, if stimulants are air-freighted from the United States to Osaka International Airport, with a transit stop at Narita International Airport, and the cargo is ultimately unloaded from the aircraft onto the ground in Osaka, the import crime is deemed completed in Osaka at the moment of that unloading.

A Special Case: Re-importing Previously Exported Stimulants

An unusual but legally pertinent question is whether an individual who takes stimulants out of Japan and subsequently brings the same stimulants back into the country has committed an "import" offense. An Osaka District Court judgment on February 28, 1977 (Showa 52), addressed this. Although this case was decided under a previous version of customs legislation, its reasoning remains instructive.

From a Customs Law perspective, the court noted that the relevant statutes did not explicitly exclude the re-importation of previously exported goods from the definition of "import." Indeed, the Tariff Act at the time presupposed that bringing back such goods constituted an import, albeit with provisions for duty exemption under certain conditions. Thus, attempting to bring back previously exported stimulants without proper declaration was considered an attempted violation of customs regulations (which today might be treated as an offense involving the import of prohibited goods).

From the Stimulant Control Act perspective, the court found no grounds to interpret "import" more leniently than under customs law. Given the overriding purpose of the Stimulant Control Act—to prevent harm to public health and safety—the act of bringing stimulants back into Japan, regardless of their origin or prior presence in the country, was held to constitute a new act of importation, and the crime was deemed complete upon their re-entry and unloading.

Attempted Importation and Preparation to Import

The Stimulant Control Act's reach extends beyond completed acts of importation. It also criminalizes attempted importation (未遂 - misui) and even preparation to import (予備 - yobi).

Attempt (misui): An attempted import occurs when an individual commences the execution of the crime of importation but, for some reason, fails to complete it. The critical legal element here is the "commencement of execution" (実行の着手 - jikkō no chakushu). This generally means that the individual must have started the act of unloading the stimulants or an act that is in very close and direct connection to unloading.

• An Osaka High Court decision on December 7, 1983 (Showa 58), clarified that the commencement of execution for importation happens when one begins the unloading process or undertakes actions intimately connected with it. In that specific case, the accused had hidden stimulants on a ship. After the ship docked, the accused went ashore to meet with the intended recipient in Japan, arrange the specifics of the handover (time, place, method), showed the recipient the ship and the planned handover location, returned to the ship, and made preparations (like readying a flashlight) to retrieve the drugs. The court held that, at the latest, these actions constituted the commencement of execution for the import crime.

Preparation (yobi): This refers to preparatory acts undertaken before the commencement of execution. If an individual, for example, purchases stimulants abroad, hides them on a vessel, and the vessel enters Japanese territorial waters, but they are apprehended before any concrete steps towards unloading or preparing for unloading are taken, this would likely be classified as preparation to import. In such a scenario, a separate charge for possession of stimulants within Japanese territorial waters would also likely apply.

Conclusion

The legal completion of a stimulant importation offense into Japan primarily hinges on the "Landing/Unloading Theory." The crime is generally considered finalized the moment the illicit substances are physically transferred onto Japanese land from a vessel or removed from an aircraft onto the ground within Japan. This holds true even if the initial landing point is a customs-controlled bonded area and regardless of the importer's ultimate intentions for the drugs' domestic circulation.

Reflecting its commitment to stemming the flow of illegal drugs, Japanese law also robustly penalizes attempted importation and even acts taken in preparation for such offenses. This comprehensive approach underscores the nation's unwavering stance against the introduction of stimulants, aiming to cut off illicit drug routes at their point of entry.