The dispute arose from the Respondent's correction, stating that the transfer of production residues (scraps) in the form of aluminum chips from PT CMWI (Bonded Zone) to PT IST (Bonded Zone) was a taxable event. The Respondent argued that the VAT non-collection facility did not apply because the raw material for the scrap did not originate from Other Places Within the Customs Area (TLDDP) and was not explicitly regulated in technical regulations at the Ministerial level.
The core of the conflict in this case lies in the interpretation of the hierarchy of laws and the definition of production residues that can be reused (re-usable raw material). The Respondent insisted on using Article 31 of PMK-147/PMK.04/2011 as the legal basis to deny the facility. On the other hand, the Taxpayer emphasized that transfers between Bonded Zones (BZ to BZ) are protected by Article 14 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation (PP) 32/2009, which holds a higher hierarchy and states that the entry of goods from a Bonded Warehouse to a Bonded Zone is granted VAT non-collection facilities.
In its resolution, the Board of Tax Judges held that the residue materials were sent to another company in the Bonded Zone not for consumption, but to be smelted back into liquid raw material (molten) for further production. The Board emphasized that based on higher regulations, namely the Government Regulation, the transfer of goods between Bonded Storage Areas is granted VAT non-collection facilities. The Judges also assessed that the Respondent's interpretation, which limited the facility only to materials originating from TLDDP, was irrelevant in the context of inter-Bonded Zone transfers for further processing.
The implications of this decision provide crucial legal certainty for industrial players in Bonded Zones, particularly regarding the utilization of production residues. This ruling confirms that technical regulations such as Minister of Finance Regulations must not restrict or negate facilities guaranteed by Government Regulations. Administratively, this case serves as a precedent that the circulation of raw materials between Bonded Zones for production efficiency remains part of the activities eligible for fiscal incentives.
In conclusion, the Board of Judges overturned the Respondent's correction because, both in substance and legal form, the transfer of scrap between Bonded Zones met the criteria for VAT non-collection facilities. The Taxpayer's victory in this case highlights the importance of understanding the hierarchy of tax laws when facing narrow interpretations from tax authorities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id