Annual Report 2012
On 20 May 2011, the Arbitral Tribunal unanimously resolved to dismiss the disputes by giving the reason which can be summarized that AIS had lawfully paid the revenue sharing. Therefore, AIS has not committed a breach of the agreement and AIS does not have to pay any additional revenue sharing to TOT. TOT submitted an application to the Central Administrative Court to set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. At present, the case is pending the consideration of the Central Administrative Court. However, the management of AIS firmly believe that this case shall reach a positive conclusion since AIS has fully paid the revenue sharing according to the same amount of excise tax. 2.3.2 The case between Digital Phone Company Limited (DPC), a subsidiary of AIS and CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) On 9 January 2008, CAT submitted a dispute (Case no. Black 3/2551) to the Arbitration Institute, Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, and Office of the Judiciary, demanding DPC, a subsidiary of AIS, to pay additional revenue sharing for 2,449 million baht under the Digital PCN (Personal Communication Network) Agreement plus penalty at the rate of 1.25% per month of the unpaid amount of each year computing from the default date until full payment is made totalling 3,410 million baht. Such claimed amount is the same amount of the excise tax as DPC has paid during 16 September 2003 to 15 September 2007, and was deducted from revenue sharing pursuant to the resolution of the cabinet on 11 February 2003 and is the same standard practice of the telecommunications industry. On 1 March 2011, the Arbitral Tribunal resolved to dismiss the dispute by giving the reason which can be summarized that the original debt had been completely paid and settled. CAT cannot re-claim for the alleged deficit amount, including the penalty and the value added tax. CAT submitted a request to the Central Administrative Court to set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. At present, the case is pending the consideration of the Central Administrative Court. However, the management of AIS firmly believes that this case shall positively ease off since the revenue sharing demanded by CAT is the same amount of excise tax which has already been paid by DPC.
063
2.4 Dispute on Interconnection Charge According to the Telecommunication Business Act B.E. 2544 and the Notification of NTC regarding the Use and Interconnection of Telecommunication Networks B.E. 2549, AIS has the duty to enter into the interconnection agreements with other operators. However, TOT, the contract grantor, has issued a written notice to AIS stating that AIS is not a legitimate licensee of telecommunication networks and is, therefore, not entitled to enter into the interconnection agreements by virtue of the Notification of NTC regarding the Use and Interconnection of Telecommunication Networks B.E. 2549. After having considered together with the comment of legal consultants, the management of AIS is of the opinion that non-compliance with the above interconnection agreements would be in conflict with the Notification of NTC regarding the Use and Interconnection of Telecommunication Networks. Therefore, AIS decided to comply with the said agreements which are in line with the legal provisions currently in force by issuing invoices to collect the interconnection charges from the contractual parties based on the rate and calculation method of AIS and paid to TOT. However, TOT required AIS to pay the revenue sharing calculated on gross amount of interconnection charges received by AIS at the rate specified in the Agreement without deduction of interconnection charges which AIS has to pay to other operators. On 26 January 2011, TOT sent a letter demanding AIS to pay the revenue sharing of the interconnection charges of the concession years 17–20 in the amount of 17,803 million baht plus interest at the rate of 1.25% per month. However, AIS disagreed and sent a letter opposing the said claim to TOT and has submitted the dispute to the Arbitration Institute, the Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Office the Judiciary ref. no. Black 19/2554 on 9 March 2011 requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to give an award that TOT has no right to claim for such revenue sharing. At present, the case is pending consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal. The management of AIS firmly believes that there shall unlikely be any material impact since AIS has fully complied with the law 2.5 Dispute between Digital Phone Company Limited (DPC), a subsidiary of AIS, and CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT) regarding the reduction of roaming charge between DPC and AIS On 7 April 2010, Digital Phone Company Limited (DPC) submitted a dispute (Case no. Black 27/2553) to the Arbitration Institute,