18 September 2015 , 06:01 WIB | Read : 790 | By : Atep Yulianto Irawan

for the compensation of the stands and the substition of stands value raise double citations (Taxes), the planters through indonesian palm oil businessmen association (ipoba) did judicial review to GR. No. 12 / 2014. the result was rejection.

The emerge of Government’s Regulation (GR) No. 12 / 2014 about Kinds and Upper Tariff of the Non Tax State Revenue (NTSR) which runs in Ministry of Forestry has raised double citations in the national palm oil plantation development.

Referring to the Article 1 paragraph 1, J and K alphabeth, it notes, the compensation of the stands and the substitution of stands value are in the Non Tax State Revenue (NTSR) in Ministryof Forestry.

In the lawsuit which Indonesian Palm Oil Businessmen Association (IPOBA) did to the High Court, the judical review to the GR No. 12 / 2014 is that the regulation raises double citations for the objects in NTSR have citation many times.

So IPOBA thought, the regulation is a loss for the compensation of the stands, and the substitution of the stands value reach 100% tariff for each other from the criterion which the plantation companies should pay, both in the business licence holders and the forest region release holder which are categorized as the NTSR.

In the previous, the regulation about the payment obligation of the stands had been twice in the judicial review and it was canceled by High Court. The Regulation of Secretary of Forestry (RSF) No. P. 14/Menhut – II/2011 about Wood Utilization Licence, and RSF No. P.65/Menhut-II.2009 about the Standard Production Cost on the Wood Utilization in Wood Utilization Licence and or the Areal Preparation to Plantation Forest Enlargement which is written in the copy of verdict of the judicial review of High Court No. 41P/HUM/2011 about the Petition to Judicial Review to the RSF.

Two years ago, precisely in 2013, when RSF P.20/Menhut-II/2013 about the Substitute on RSF No. P.14/Menhut-II/2011 about the Wood Utilization Licence, IPOBA did judicial review too. As the result, High Court decided the petition with its verdict of High Court No. 62P/HUM/2013.

In the law  . . .

. . . for the full article can be read in a InfoSAWIT Store.
InfoSAWIT Store