in Japan. (i) the income tax;
in Japan. (i) the taxes referred to in clauses (i) to (iv) of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 3 of Article 2;
in Japan. (i) with respect to taxes withheld at source, for amounts taxable on or after January 1 of the calendar year next following the expiration of the six month period; and
in Japan. (i) with respect to taxes levied on the basis of a taxable year, for taxes for any taxable years beginning on or after 1 January in the calendar year next following that in which the Convention enters into force;
in Japan. (i) with respect to taxes withheld at source, for amounts taxable on or after 1st January in the calendar year next following that in which the Convention enters into force; and
in Japan. (i) with respect to taxes withheld at source, for amounts taxable on or after the first day of January of the calendar year next following that in which this Agreement enters into force;
in Japan. DRAMs (Korea), the Panel found that countervailing duties may only be imposed to offset present subsidization. In that case, Japan's investigating authority had found that a benefit was conferred by a subsidy provided in 2001, had allocated the benefit conferred by the 2001 subsidy over a period of five years only, and had imposed a countervailing duty in 2006 (i.e., after the relevant period of benefit allocation had expired). The Panel explained that the obligation to demonstrate present subsidization at the time of duty imposition was not inconsistent with the practice of investigating authorities establishing the existence of subsidization on the basis of past periods of investigation: "The obligation to establish present subsidization does not mean that investigating authorities are prevented from establishing the existence of subsidization (and injury and causing) by reference to data taken from a past period of investigation. To the contrary, given the need for investigating authorities to issue questionnaires, collect reliable and verifiable data, process and verify that data, and safeguard the due process rights of interested parties, investigating authorities have no choice but to establish the existence of subsidization (and injury) on the basis of past periods of investigation. Thus, countervailing duties may be imposed on the basis of the investigating authority's review of a past period of investigation. We are not suggesting that an investigating authority is somehow required to conduct a new investigation at the time of imposition, in order to confirm the continued existence of the subsidization found to exist during the period of investigation. That would defeat the very purpose of using periods of investigation in the first place. However, the use of a past period of investigation does not negate the need for an investigating authority to be satisfied that there is present subsidization. Rather, the historical data from the period of investigation 'is being used to draw conclusions about the current situation,' '[b]ecause the conditions to impose [a duty] are to be assessed with respect to the current situation'. In this sense, the situation during the period of investigation is used as a proxy for the situation pertaining 'current[ly]', at the time of imposition. In the case of non-recurring subsidies, if the review of the period of investigation indicates that the subsidy will no longer exist at the time of imposition, the existence of ...
in Japan. The income tax and the corporation tax (hereinafter referred to as “Japanese tax”); and the local taxes referred to in Articles V and XVII of the present Convention.
in Japan as respects income for any taxable year beginning on or after the first day of January in the calendar year in which the exchange of the instruments of ratification takes place.
in Japan. Using counsel of its choice, Daiichi Sankyo shall, at its own expense, be responsible for further filing PCT application and domestic applications claiming the priority based on the applications set forth in Exhibit B respectively, prosecuting and maintaining the basic domestic application in Japan that is described in the Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patent. Daiichi Sankyo may also be solely responsible, at its sole expense, for defending such Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patent from any challenges to their validity or enforceability, including responding to patent office communications or office actions, oppositions, reissue reexamination proceedings or interference, or interferences, brought by any Third Party in Japan, whether before a patent authority or judicial body. Daiichi Sankyo will provide AnHeart a reasonable opportunity to review material submissions and correspondence in Japanese regarding the prosecution, maintenance or defence of Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patent in Japan. AnHeart has the right to provide any comment to Daiichi Sankyo within [**Redacted**] days after the receipt of such material submissions and correspondences. In the Territory. Using counsel of its choice, AnHeart shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for preparing, filing, prosecuting, and maintaining the Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patents in the Territory, including preparing and filing requests for patent term extensions, supplemental protection certificates, pediatric exclusivity, or similar protections that extend the term of such Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patents. AnHeart shall also be solely responsible for defending the Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patents from any challenges to their validity or enforceability, including responding to patent office communications or office actions, oppositions, reissue or reexamination proceedings, or interferences, brought by any Third Party, whether before a patent authority or judicial body in the Territory, [**Redacted**]. AnHeart shall keep Daiichi Sankyo reasonably informed regarding actions it takes in connection with preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending Daiichi Sankyo Fully Owned Patents. Daiichi Sankyo shall, upon request, provide reasonable support to AnHeart, including signing documents necessary for AnHeart to fulfill its obligations under this Section 6.2 at AnHeart’s expense. [**Redacted**]. On a country by country basis, if XxXxxxx decides that it will no longer prosecute or maintain Daiichi Sa...
