This Act comes into effect on the date specified by Cabinet Order within a period not exceeding one year and six months from the date of promulgation provided, however, that the provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Supplementary Provisions come into effect on the date of promulgation.

In the case where, before the date this Act comes into effect (hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date"), with regard to one violation, a notification under Article 49, paragraph (5) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade before the amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Former Act") (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 50, paragraph (6) of the Former Act) was given to all or part of the enterprise or trade association that committed the violation or its constituent enterprises (where an officer, employee, agent or other person who acts for the benefit of an enterprise is a constituent enterprise, including that enterprise; the same applies in Article 7, paragraph (1) of the Supplementary Provisions), the provisions then in force continue to govern the procedures for ordering measures necessary to eliminate the violation or to ensure that the violation has been eliminated, procedures for ordering payment of a surcharge, procedures for collecting or refunding a surcharge, trial proceedings (including procedures for designating trial examiners; the same applies in the following Article and Article 4 of the Supplementary Provisions), procedures for an action to revoke a decision made through those trial proceedings, and other procedures similar to these that are specified by the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

In the case where, before the Effective Date, a certified copy of the written decision to commence trial proceedings under Article 55, paragraph (3) of the Former Act was served, the provisions then in force continue to govern the procedures for ordering measures necessary to restore competition with respect to the goods or services concerning the monopolistic situation, trial proceedings, procedures for an action to revoke a decision made through those trial proceedings, and other procedures similar to these that are specified by the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

In the case where trial proceedings were commenced before the Effective Date pursuant to Article 70-12, paragraph (1) of the Former Act, the provisions then in force continue to govern the trial proceedings, procedures for an action to revoke a decision made through those trial proceedings, and other procedures similar to these that are specified by the Rules of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

①In the case where payment of a surcharge is ordered pursuant to Article 7-2, paragraph (1) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade after the amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "New Act") (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 7-2, paragraph (2) of the New Act) or Article 7-2, paragraph (4) of the New Act, if the enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date in the case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1), (2) or (4) of the New Act (meaning the date on which the disposition set forth in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade or the disposition prescribed in Article 102, paragraph (1) of that Act was first carried out in the case concerning the violation (or, where that disposition was not carried out, the date on which the enterprise received a notification under Article 50, paragraph (1) of the New Act, as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 62, paragraph (4) of the New Act (referred to as "advance notification" in the following Article), concerning the violation); the same applies in paragraph (3)), received a decision under Article 51, paragraph (2) of the Former Act, that decision is deemed to be a decision under Article 63, paragraph (2) of the New Act and the provisions of Article 7-2, paragraphs (7) and (9) of the New Act apply.

②In the case where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1), (2) or (4) of the New Act is a corporation and that corporation has ceased to exist due to a merger, the decision under Article 51, paragraph (2) of the Former Act that the corporation received is deemed to be a decision under Article 63, paragraph (2) of the New Act and the provisions of Article 7-2, paragraph (24) of the New Act apply.

③In the case where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1), (2) or (4) of the New Act is a corporation and that corporation has, on or after the investigation start date in the case concerning the violation, transferred all of the business concerned with the violation to any one or more of its subsidiary companies, etc. (meaning the subsidiary companies, etc. prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (13), item (i) of the New Act; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph), or that corporation (limited to a company) has, on or after the investigation start date in the case concerning the violation, had any one or more of its subsidiary companies, etc. succeed to all of the business concerned with the violation through a split, and has ceased to exist due to a reason other than merger, the decision under Article 51, paragraph (2) of the Former Act that the corporation received is deemed to be a decision under Article 63, paragraph (2) of the New Act and the provisions of Article 7-2, paragraph (25) of the New Act apply.

①With regard to the application of Article 20-2 of the New Act, if the enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the date on which the disposition set forth in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in the case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-2 of the New Act (or, where that disposition was not carried out, within 10 years going back from the date on which the enterprise received advance notification concerning the violation), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Act (limited to a decision rescinding the whole of the original disposition, and including a decision in the case where, pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions, the provisions then in force continue to govern) with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (limited to one falling under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of that Act) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision is deemed to be an order under Article 20-2 of the New Act that has become final and binding.

②With regard to the application of Article 20-3 of the New Act, if the enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the date on which the disposition set forth in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in the case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-3 of the New Act (or, where that disposition was not carried out, within 10 years going back from the date on which the enterprise received advance notification concerning the violation), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Act (limited to a decision rescinding the whole of the original disposition, and including a decision in the case where, pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions, the provisions then in force continue to govern) with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (limited to one falling under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (ii) of that Act) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision is deemed to be an order under Article 20-3 of the New Act that has become final and binding.

③With regard to the application of Article 20-4 of the New Act, if the enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the date on which the disposition set forth in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in the case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-4 of the New Act (or, where that disposition was not carried out, within 10 years going back from the date on which the enterprise received advance notification concerning the violation), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Act (limited to a decision rescinding the whole of the original disposition, and including a decision in the case where, pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions, the provisions then in force continue to govern) with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (limited to one falling under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iii) of that Act) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision is deemed to be an order under Article 20-4 of the New Act that has become final and binding.

④With regard to the application of Article 20-5 of the New Act, if the enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the date on which the disposition set forth in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in the case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-5 of the New Act (or, where that disposition was not carried out, within 10 years going back from the date on which the enterprise received advance notification concerning the violation), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Act (limited to a decision rescinding the whole of the original disposition, and including a decision in the case where, pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions, the provisions then in force continue to govern) with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (limited to one falling under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iv) of that Act) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision is deemed to be an order under Article 20-5 of the New Act that has become final and binding.