Award - JusMundi-pdf-amco-v-indonesia-icsid-case-no-arb-81-1-award.pdf

Tags

Top Highlights

• The meetings and documents which preceded the revocation were previously described (see above, paras 110, 115). Suffice it to recall here that the starting point of the process which resulted finally in the revocation of the licence was a letter of PT Wisma Kartika, dated April 11, 1980, which was handed over to Messrs Harun and Usman, of BKPM during a meeting held in the afternoon of April 12 (a first meeting had been held in the morning of the same day). According to Mr Usman’s testimony (see above, para. 115) some checking was made by him, the same or the next day, with Bank Indonesia and the tax authorities; on April 13, 1980, a meeting which lasted about one hour was held at the BKPM offices between Messrs Tomodok and Gumillag, of PT Amco, and Messrs Harun and Usman of BKPM. The next day, April 14, PT Wisma address

• he two basic documents respectively filed by the parties in order to establish the amount of the investment realized by Claimants (and in addition, as far as the Claimants are concerned, that they'allegedly "caused" Aeropacific to realize) are: — by the Claimants, the report of Mr Gerald S. Nemeth, from Nemeth/ Bolton, chartered accountants of 601 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC (Cl. Doc. No. 64); — by the Respondent, the report of Touche Ross & Co, certified public accountants of 1900 M. Street NW, Washington DC (Resp. Exh. vol. V, No. 113). Both reports were explained, discussed and in some respects supplemented, during the hearings held in March 1984 in Copenhagen, by the oral testimonies of Messrs Gerald S. Nemeth, called by Claimants, and Thomas Bintinger, called by Respondent. Finally, the Tribunal recalls that in their Reply to Counter-Memorial (at 91-5), then in oral argument, Claimants argued that, in their view, there were four methods for calculating the realized investment of US $3,000,000. These calculations were contested by Respondent (see in particular Rejoinder on the Merits, at 4.1) and discussed by Messrs Touche Ross in their re

• xpert testimonies and oral argument. Before coming to the examination of this controversial amount, it is necessary to make a decision as to the criteria of the investment which corresponds to the requirements of Law No. 1 of 1967 and other relevant’ Indonesian regulations and to the obligations undertaken by Amco Asia Corporation in its application. These criteria are of four kinds: — the origin of the investment; — its composition; — its amount;