On September 26, as reported already, Air Water won the suit in which it had appealed for cancellation of the standard to calculate the cartel surcharge on air separation gases levied by the Fair Trade Commission (FTC). On October 14, FTC adjudged to accept substantially Air Water’s appeal. It followed practically that FTC cancelled the portion in the amount of 2,911 million yen exceeding 727.82 million yen for deduction from the total surcharge of 3,639 million yen already paid by Air Water. On October 15 of next day, Air Water was paid a total of 3,302.961 million yen including the cancelled portion plus the additional charge (interests).
It means that Air Water was judged the winner of battle over the calculation standard in the third year which started on July 22, 2011.

The point in dispute at this time was the calculation rate to figure out the surcharge imposed on Air Water in the trade concerning the price cartel, based on the definition of Air Water’s business category whether as a manufacturer other than retailer/wholesaler for 10% or just a wholesaler to which 2% is applied for calculation. According to FTC’s Surcharge Payment Order on May 26, 2011, a calculation rate of 10% was applied to Air Water defined as a manufacturer and Air Water paid 3,639.11 million yen to FTC.

On July 22, 2011, however, Air Water demanded for a trial to FTC as the applied standard for calculation is unacceptable.

On November 19, 2013, FTC rejected the demand and on December 19 of the year Air Water appealed to the Tokyo High Court for cancellation of the said FTC’s rejection. As aforementioned, the Tokyo High Court adjudged to cancel the rejection on September 26, 2014. Following the court judgment, FTC reviewed the calculation standard. Practically, deliberations were made as to whether the production of LO2, LN2 and argon in Cryo-Air (Sakai City) of ASU plant invested by Air Water and the Osaka Gas group is controlled under Air Water.

In the deliberations made on the 14th, FTC defined that Cryo-Air cannot be defined as a production base under Air Water’s control, and judged to cancel the payment of 10% surcharge, saying “There is nothing specific to recognize that Air Water is engaged substantially in production activities in connection with the business of air separation gases which Air Water purchased from Cryo-Air.”