axiata group berhad | annual report 2015
221
35. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS (CONTINUED)
(c) 3G annual fees commitment
XL has committed to pay annual fees within ten (10) years, as long as XL holds the 3G license. The amount of annual payment is based on the
scheme of payment set out in Regulation No. 07/PER/M.KOMINFO/2/2006 of the Minister of Communication & Information and Decree No.323/
KEP/M.KOMINFO/09/2010 of the Minister of Communication & Information. No penalty will be imposed in the event that XL returns the license.
(d) List of contingent liabilities of subsidiaries of the Group as at 31 December are as follows:
Potential exposure
2015
2014
Description
RM’million
RM’million
1.
Celcom Trading Sdn Bhd [formerly known as Rego Multi-Trades Sdn Bhd] (“Celcom
Trading”) vs Aras Capital Sdn Bhd (“Aras Capital”) and Tan Sri Dato’ Tajudin Ramli
(“TSDTR”)
In 2005, Celcom Trading, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Celcom Resources Berhad [formerly
known as Technology Resources Industries Berhad (“Celcom Resources”)], commenced
proceedings against Aras Capital and TSDTR for amounts due to Celcom Trading pursuant to
an investment agreement with Aras Capital and an indemnity letter given by TSDTR. TSDTR
filed its defence and instituted a counterclaim against Celcom Trading, Celcom Resources and
its directors to void and rescind the indemnity letter and claim damages.
The Board of Directors, based on legal advice received, are of the view that it has good
prospects of succeeding on the claim and successfully defending the counterclaim if the same
were to proceed to trial.
100.0
100.0
2.
VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited (“VIPEM”) vs Celcom Resources on TRI
Telecommunications Tanzania (“Tritel”)
In December 2001, vide Civil Case No. 427 of 2001, VIPEM claimed a sum of USD18.6 million
from Celcom Resources as its share of loss of profits for the mismanagement of Tritel, a joint
venture company between Celcom Resources and VIPEM. In light of the winding-up order
made against Tritel, Celcom Resources filed its claims of RM123.4 million with the liquidator of
Tritel in July 2003.
The Board of Directors, based on legal opinion received, are of the view that the allegations of
mismanagement, are rhetorical and unsubstantiated. In view of the winding up proceedings,
there is also a possibility that VIPEM will not pursue its claim.
63.7
63.7
3.
Claim on Robi by National Board of Revenue of Bangladesh (“NBR”)
The Large Tax Unit of NBR issued a show case letter dated 23 February 2012 to Robi demanding
payment of supplementary duty and VAT levied on the issuance of a certain number of SIM
cards to new customers of Robi on the pretext that the issuance was replacement purposes
with regards to Robi’s existing customers. The total demand amounted to BDT4,150.6 million
(2014:BDT6,549.9 million).
The Board of Directors, based on legal advice received, are of the view that it has good
prospects of succeeding on the claim.
226.9
294.6
