You are on page 1of 2

The Management of PT.

LG Electronic Indonesia Head Office & Factory 1 Block G, MM2100 Industrial Town Cikarang Barat, Bekasi 17520 Jawa Barat , Indonesia Attn: Mr. Byoung Uk Min

Dear Mr. Byoung Uk Min Re: Guarantee. As follow up of our yesterday email Wednesday, February 15, 2012, as well as your responded we PT. TRK director hereby thanks to your quick respond:LG does not accept the post dated Check as our guarantee but asking tangible collateral instead. We have misunderstood the purpose of said guarantees; we have the opinion that it is for the balance of repayment which we requested for installment, and not for in-transit products. Products in-transit; as far as our concern have been stipulated in our contract agreement and it should insured its mean covered by Insurance Company, the TRK liability it is maximum of US$ 10,000 (ten thousand United State dollars) per occasion liability occurred. TRK as small company does not have in up tangible assets, due to some of them are in the position of deposited in the Bank for the collateral purpose, however, TRK is willing to give a kind of Corporate Guarantee/Directors Statement or issued an Addendum to our present Contract. Hoping this proposal will be accepted by LG Management, and the operation can be started as soon as possible in accordance to our signed contract. Re: Tax penalty. To our consideration, VAT matter, which you said:fictive tax invoice, since 2009, until now and become as a problem, it was instructed and guided by LG to do so. At that time it was told and force us, otherwise our payment would not be release. In many occasion we have been argued and protested and explain that TRK is not considered/registered as VAT payer and until that time we never knew that our industry of trucking land transportation activities is subject to VAT. Also, since the year of 1999 up to 2008, we have been one of LG transporter/trucking to LG has never been required to issue VAT invoice to LG. And now we understood that our type of industry of trucking land transportation is not subject to VAT. The above clarifications we conclude that: 1. The VAT was Issuing by initiator and in the interest of LG. 2. As company it is LG as subject to VAT and not TRK. 3. The fact it is correct that some money has been paid to TRK during those times, and we have sincerely understood and mentioned since the early on this money will not be TRK moneys and some day it should be returned to LG in full amount.

4. For TRK as small company Tax penalty as such amount is a very big and heavy burden. We summarized the above four points, and we come up into conclusion that TRK is not responsible for the Tax Penalty but it is the responsibility of LG. Your kind of understanding and approval to this proposal clarification will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours, PT. TRK

Eddi Nerwin Hasibuan Director