Sale and Purchase Agreements

80 80 Object of Agreement : 1 floor of Building with approximate area of 30 square meters Purpose of Agreement : Place of Business Term : 5 five years since 1 February 2010 to 31 January 2015 Lease Price : 1. Lease price shall be Rp.70,000 seventy thousand Rupiah per square meter or Rp.2,100,000.00 two million one hundred thousand Rupiah per month or Rp.25,200,000.00 twenty five million two hundred thousand Rupiah per year or Rp.126,000,000.00 one hundred and twenty six million Rupiah per five years, excluding VAT 10 ten percent; 2. Service charge shall be Rp.30,000.00 thirty thousand Rupiah per square meter or Rp.900,000.00 nine hundred thousand rupiah per month or Rp.10,800,000.00 ten million eight hundred thousand Rupiah per year or Rp.54,000,000.00 fifty four million Rupiah per five years, excluding VAT 10 ten percent. 4. Lease Agreement dated 2 January 2009 privately-drawn with sufficient stamp duty by and between PT Wintermarjaya Lestari as Lessor and Hammar as Lessee, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : 1 floor of Building with approximate area of 20.50 square meters Purpose of Agreement : Place of Business Term : 5 years as of 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2014 Lease Price : 1. Lease price shall be Rp.70,000 seventy thousand Rupiah per square meter or Rp.1,435,000.00 one million four hundred and thirty five thousand Rupiah per month or Rp.17,220,000.00 seventeen million two hundred and twenty thousand Rupiah per year or Rp.86,100,000.00 eighty six million one hundred thousand Rupiah per five years, excluding VAT 10 ten percent; 2. Service charge shall be Rp.30,000.00 thirty thousand Rupiah per square meter or Rp.615,000.00 six hundred fifteen thousand Rupiah per month or Rp.7,380,000.00 seven million three hundred and eighty thousand Rupiah per year or Rp.36,900,000.00 thirty six million nine hundred thousand Rupiah per five years, excluding VAT 10 ten percent, The nature of relationship between the Company with PT Wintermajaya Lestari is that PT Wintermajaya Lestari is an affiliate of the Company.

D. Sale and Purchase Agreements

In performing its business activities, the Company has entered into vessel sale and purchase agreements andor transactions with related parties, where such sale and purchase transactions constitute parts of business activities of the Company to improve the quality of services of its fleets. Whereas the agreements andor transactions are as follows: 1. Addendum No. 1 dated 9 March 2010 on Memorandum of Agreement MOA dated 20 November 2009 privately-drawn by and between Greatship India Limited as Seller PT Wintermar or PSV Nominee as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Purpose of Agreement : PT Wintermar agrees to appoint PSV as Purchaser pursuant to MOA, Object of Agreement : Greatship Diya 2. Addendum No. 2 dated 9 March 2010 on Memorandum of Agreement MOA dated 20 November 2009 privately-drawn by and between Greatship Global Offshore Service Pte Ltd as Seller; PT Wintermar or PSV Nominee as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Purpose of Agreement : PT Wintermar agrees to appoint PSV as Purchaser pursuant to MOA, Object of Agreement : Greatship Rekha 3. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. 98NLA,19IX2009 dated 2 September 2009 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as Seller and WT as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Purpose of Agreement : SMS Rainbow Purchase Price : US5,000,000.00 five million United States dollars 81 81 4. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. 2535A.19X2005 dated 13 October 2005 by and between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as Seller and PT Wintermar as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Purpose of Agreement : Prisai Vessel Purchase Price : US2,800,000 two million eight hundred thousand United States dollars 5. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. 2563A,19VIII2006 dated 15 August 2006 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime as Seller and PT Wintermar as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions; Purpose of Agreement : SMS JOL Vessel Purchase Price : US4,150,000 four million one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars 6. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. 2568A.19VIII2007 dated 14 August 2007 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime as Seller and PT Wintermar as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : SMS Vincent Purchase Price : US4,150,000 four million one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars 7. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. 2624A.19VIII2008 dated 21 August 2008 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime as Seller and PT Wintermar as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : SMS Abel Purchase Price : US4,800,000 four million and eight hundred thousand United States dollars 8. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1 July 2008 privately-drawn by and between Seaman Marine Pte Ltd “Seller” and the Issuer “Purchaser” with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : STG 168 Purchase Price : SGD 1,300,000.00 one million and three hundred thousand Singapore dollars 9. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement No. SPPTW0108 dated 17 April 2008 privately-drawn by and between Satria Samudra Pte Ltd as Seller and WT as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : Satria Satu Purchase Price : US2,250,000.00 two million two hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars 10. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 17 March 2008 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as Seller and WT as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : SMS Able Purchase Price : US5,000,000.00 five million United States dollars, 11. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement dated1 October 2009 privately-drawn by and between Seaman Marine Pte Ltd as Seller and WT as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : STS 233 Purchase Price : US600,000,000 six hundred million United States dollars 12. Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 30 October 2009 privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as Seller and WT as Purchaser, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : SMS 3001 Purchase Price : US1,000,000.00 one million United states dollars 82 82 13. Sale Purchase Agreement NO. NL001A.20X2010 dated 28 October 2010 drawn up privately-drawn by and between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as the Seller and WT as the Buyer, with the following terms and conditions: Object of Agreement : SMS Vision Purchasing Price : USD 3,800,000 three million eight hundred thousand US Dollar Security Deposit : USD 10,000 ten thousand US Dollar paid at the time of signing of the Agreement Second Payment : USD 390,000 three hundred ninety thousand US Dollar to be paid one month after the vessel is received Payment Balance : USD 3,400,000 three million four hundred thousand US Dollar to be paid 3 months af- ter the Second Payment. Costs for delay in payment: Should the Buyer fail to pay each installment or interest or pre payment value or each obligation incurred, the Buyer shall pay penalty for delay to the Seller amounting to ap- proximately 5. 13. Legal Cases Against the Company As of the date of the issuance of this Prospectus, the Issuer, its subsidiaries, the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners of the Issuer, and the Boards of Directors and Boards of Commissioners of the Issuer’s subsidiaries are not involved or facing any disputes or being claimed for any cases, both civil or criminal before the court, andor disputes settled through BANI, petitioned for insolvency andor delay of payment of liabilities through Commercial court, taxes disputes at Taxation Disputes Settlement Body BPSP and labor disputes at Industrial Relationship Court PHI. The Issuer and its subsidiaries are not involved in Criminal, Bankruptcy, nor Labor legal cases except for the following tax cases of the subsidiaries: WT a. Court Ruling No.22487PPM,I152010 dated 8 March 2010. Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2.Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1860WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Response to Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2003 No.000032060307306 dated 3 October 2006. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No, KEP- 1860WPJ.06BD,062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No. 4467A.12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2002 No. 000032060307306 dated 3 October 2006, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas the taxation dispute between Appellant and Appellee started during examination process conducted by Central Jakarta Tax Office, continued by Central Jakarta Regional Office Director General of Taxation during the objection process, However, Appellant rejected the results from both examination stages, because according to Appellant, the examination results were different from its factual condition. The examiner included a series of transactions as additional income of the company, as follows: 1. Correction of income incurred from sale of vessel Rp.9,353,339,992.00 Whereas according to Appellee, the Hire Purchase transactions for 2 units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Persero is regarded as a regular sale and purchase transaction which results in increase of company’s income, this is denied by Appellant because: Whereas pursuant to contract No. HK.56619C.Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article 13 1 with Pelindo II, it is stipulated that at the end of contract period in 2008, a trans- fer of ownership shall occur upon settlement by Pelindo of its installment obligations; Whereas according to Appellee the amount which must be settled by installment for the period of 60 months has been acknowledged as income from sales, thus becomes 83 83 liable to tax, However, the vessel ownership still lies with the company and is not transferred to Pelindo, unless all installment obligations have been fully settled by Pelindo; Whereas if at present, such installments are acknowledged as income from sales, what if Pelindo is unable to settle its installment obligations, and no transferassignment of vessel ownership occurs; Whereas, as such, during installment period, the payments should be considered as down payment, and sales income shall be acknowledged at the end of installment period, whereby all down paymentsinstallments have been settled; 2. Correction of loss incurred from currency difference Rp.1,078,504,232.00 Whereas during the course of Appellant’s business activities, gain and loss of foreign exchange have occurred, whereby in taxation year 2003, resulted in net loss of foreign exchange difference in the amount of Rp.1,430,314,232.00 less gross income with no outstanding final VAT. whereas Appellee conducted correction of net loss of foreign exchange in the amount of Rp.1,078,504,232.00 because Appellee did not consider other transactions in foreign currency in relation to income with no outstanding final VAT, whereby it should be treated as income of expenses pursuant to general provisions Income Tax Law Article 17, Such has also been affirmed in a number of Letters from Director General of Taxation, among others Letter No. S-332PJ.422003 dated 30 June 2003 concerning Treatment of Income Tax on Gain and Loss of Foreign Exchange for Appellant which Income is Subject to Final Income Tax, Whereas according to Appellant, the net amount of currency difference which may be deducted from gross income is Rp.1,430,314,232.00 3. Correction of reimbursement income from Pelindo Rp.1,528,657,500.00 Whereas during the course of Appellant’s business here occurred an agreement between Appellant and shipping companies, chartering parties or port services party Pelindo, whereas Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement; Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as income tax; Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract; Whereas if Appellee acknowledges such reimbursement as income, then Appellee must also acknowledge its expenses which, in this regard, is in similar amount; Claim : Rejects Decree of Director General of Taxation No. KEP-1860WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee Number: KEP-1860WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection towards Request 84 84 for Objection Letter of Appellant No.4467A.12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2002 No. 000032060307306 dated 3 October 2006, therefore the 2003 Income Tax is recalculated as follows: Net Income cfm Tribunal: Rp.4,692,209,285.00 Compensation for Loss Rp.2,239,651,523.00 Taxable Income Rp.2,452,557,762.00 Income Tax Expense Rp. 718,267,100.00 Tax Credit Rp. 0.00 Underpayment for Tax Income Rp. 718,267,100.00 Interest administrative sanction Article 13 2 Rp. 344,768,208.00 Total Outstanding Amount Rp.1,063,035,308.00 Case Status : - Judicial Review Process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-560SP.51VII2010 dated14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. - Response letter towards application of judicial review Number 3214A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar

b. Court Ruling No. 22495PPM.I152010 dated 8 March 2010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1688WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning Response to Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2005 No. 000082060507307 dated 22 August 2007 Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No. KEP- 1688WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No. 3797A.12X2007 dated 10 October 2007 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2005 No.000082060507307 dated 22 August 2007, pursuant to article 15 1 of Law no. 16 Year 2000 on General Provisions and Procedures of TaxationKUP, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas, such application for appeal is submitted by Appellant because the arguments and results of examination conducted by the Examiner were different from its factual condition and situation on field; Whereas, correction of income from sale of vessel is Rp.16,132,461,160.00 Whereas according to the Examiner, the Hire Purchase transactions for 2 units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Persero is regarded as a regular sale and purchase transaction which results in increase of company’s income; Whereas, according to results of re-statement of audit on financial statement for years 2005 and 2006 from Independent Kantor Akuntan Publik Drs, Amir Hadyi and results of audit on financial statement for year 2007 from Kantor Akuntan Publik Aryanto, Amir, Jusuf and Mawar, the vessel hire purchase transaction with Pelindo II as set forth in agreement No, HK,56619C,Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003 is categorized as finance lease transaction and not sale and purchase of vessel; Whereas, pursuant to contract No.HK.56619C.Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article13 1 with Pelindo II, at the end of contract period year 2008 a conditional transfer of ownership shall occur upon settlement of Pelindo’s installment obligations; Whereas, according to Examiner, the amount paid as installment for the period of 60 months has been acknowledged as advance vessel sales income thus becomes liable for tax, However, the vessel ownership still lies with the company and is not transferred to Pelindo, unless all installment obligations have been fully settled by Pelindo; 85 85 Whereas if at present, such installments are acknowledged as income from sales, what if Pelindo is unable to settle its installment obligations, and no transferassignment of vessel ownership occurs; Whereas the hire purchase transaction with Pelindo II is not a sale and purchase transaction, however such transaction is mentioned as a financing transaction whereby acknowledgement of the company’s lease income is conducted pursuant to Indonesian GAAP; Whereas correction of loss due to currency difference is Rp.215,299,570.00 Whereas during the course of Appellant’s business activities, there occurred profit and loss due to difference of currency, whereby in 2005 taxation year resulted in net loss due to currency difference in the amount of Rp.931,009,945.00 which has been deducted from Gross income with no outstanding final VAT, which was treated as income or expenses based on general provisions withheld from Gross income with no final income tax owed but treated as income or expenses based on general provisions Income Tax Law article 17; Whereas such condition has been affirmed in a number of Appellee’s letters, among others Letter No.S-332PJ.422003 dated 30 June 2003 concerning Treatment of Income Tax on Gain and Loss of Foreign Exchange for Appellant Which Income is Subject to Final VAT. Claim : Cancel KEP-1688WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal requests towards Decision of Appellee No KEP-1688WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008, concerning Objection Of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2005 No. 000082060507307 dated 22 August 2007, thus 2003 Income Tax is recalculated to become as follows: Net Income cfm Tribunal: Rp.2,913,747,849.00 Compensation for Loss Rp. 0.00 Taxable Income Rp.2,913,747,000.00 Income Tax Expense Rp. 856,624,100.00 Tax Credit Rp. 47,172,199.00 Underpayment for Tax Income Rp. 809,451,901.00 Interest administrative sanction Article 13 2 Rp. 323,780,760.00 Total Outstanding Amount Rp.1,133,232,661.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review. Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-526SP,51VII2010 dated 9 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Response to Application for Judicial Review Number 3035A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

c. Court Ruling No.22496PPM.I272010 dated 8 March 2010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1689WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning Response to Objection towards Decision Letter of Income Taxes Paid in Deficit No. 00032410507307 dated 22 August 2007 Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No. KEP-1689WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No.3796A.12X07 dated 10 October 2007 towards Decision Letter of Income Taxes Paid in Deficit Article 15 year 2005 No. 000032410507307 dated 22 August 2007, pursuant to article 15 1 of Law no, 16 Year 2000 on General Provisions and Procedures of TaxationKUP, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; 86 86 Whereas, such Objection Letter is submitted by Appellant because results of examination conducted by the Examiner were different from its factual condition and situation on field, The Examiner has: A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party in the amount of Rp.8,204,597,694.00 as additional income revenue which is subject to Article 15 final Income Tax, Whereas towards the result of examiner’s opinion, Appellant firmly objected with the following reasons: a. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement; b. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; c. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; d. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as income tax; e. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract; f. Whereas in accordance with Article 4 1, Law No, 17 Year 2000 Tax Income Law, Tax Object shall mean income, namely any additional economic ability gained or received by Tax Subject, both domestic and offshore, which may be used for consumption or to increase wealth of relevant Tax Subject, in any name and form, Fund received from reimbursement is not an addition to company’s economic ability for such fund is a company fund which has been previously disbursed to be invoiced to customers or vessel owners, B. According to Appellee, shipping services income which has been deducted by Article 15 Income Tax is in the amount of Rp.81,679,015,635.00 meanwhile according to Appellant it is in the amount of Rp.80,488,561,204.00. Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation No.KEP-1689WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 Oc- tober 2008 Ruling : Grant all of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Director General of Taxation No. KEP-1689WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning objection towards Decision Letter of Income Taxes Paid in Deficit Article 15 year 2005 No. 000032410507307 dated 22 August 2007, thus the 2003 Income Tax is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base: Rp.118,376,104,545,00 Article 15 Income Tax Expense Rp. 1,453,737,263,00 Tax Credit Rp. 1,462,195,267,00 Overpayment of Article 15 Income Tax: Rp. 8,458,004,00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-527SP.51VII2010 dated 9 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation, Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3034A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar. 87 87

d. Court Ruling No,22497PPM,I162010 dated 8 March 2010-

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1690WPJ,06BD,062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning response to objection towards Decision Letter of Value Added Taxes for Other Goods and Services Paid in Deficit on Delivery of Assets Article 16 D for taxation period of January until December 2005 No.000132370507307 dated 22 August 2007. Case Position : Whereas Appellant applies for appeal towards Appellee’s Decision No,KEP 1690WPJ.06BD,062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning objection towards Decision Letter of Value Added Taxes for Other Goods and Services Paid in Deficit on Delivery of Assets Article 16 D for taxation period of January until December 2005 No.000132370507307 dated 22 August 2007. Whereas, such objection letter is submitted by Appellant because the arguments on results of examination conducted by the Appellee were different from its factual condition and situation on field. Whereas Appellee has included transaction of sale and purchase of SMS 2102 vessel in the amount of Rp.2,987,995,000.00 as transaction for sale and purchase of Non current assets which in relation to its delivery it shall be liable to Value Added Tax in accordance with Article 16D in Law No, 18 Year 2000 on Value Added Taxes for Goods and Services; Whereas Article 16D in such Law stipulated that Value Added Tax shall be imposed on delivery of assets which initial purpose is not for sale, to the extent the Value Added Tax paid at the time of purchase may be credited; Whereas, the sale and purchase transaction of SMS 2102 vessel transaction to a national shipping company named PT Karya Cemerlang is in accordance with Sale and Purchase Agreement No 2532A.19SPV2005 dated 4 February 2005; Whereas, in relation to such sale and purchase transaction to a national shipping company in accordance with Article 5 paragraph 2 Government Regulation No.38 Year 2003, it is categorized as a transaction which is not subject to Value Added Tax, thus such sale and purchase of vessel transaction should not be subject to Value Added Tax, Claim : Cancel Decision of Director General of Taxation Number KEP-1690WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Director General of Taxation No, KEP-1690WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 29 October 2008 concerning objection towards Decision Letter of Value Added Taxes for Other Goods and Services Paid in Deficit on Delivery of Assets Article 16 D for taxation period of January until December 2005 No.000132370507307 dated 22 August 2007, thus the 2003 Income Tax is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base: Rp.113,000,000.00 VAT Out: Rp. 13,300,000.00 VAT In Rp. 8,754,545.00 VAT Overpayment Rp. 4,209,090.00 Administrative Sanction Interest based on Article 13 2 KUP Rp. 1,818,182.00 Outstanding amount Rp. 6,027,272.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-528SP.51VII2010 dated 9 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3036A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar. 88 88

e. Court Ruling No.22486PPM.I272010 dated 8 March 2010-

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1884WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning response to objection towards Decision Letter of Article 15 Income Taxes Paid in Deficit for taxation period of January-December 2002 No.000012410207306 dated 3 October 2006. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No. KEP- 1884WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No.4466A.12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 towards Decision Letter of Income Taxes Paid in Deficit Article 15 for taxation period of January-December 2002 No. 000012410207306 dated 3 October 2006, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas, such Objection Letter is submitted by Appellant because results of examination conducted by the Examiner were different from its factual condition and situation on field, The Examiner has: A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party in the amount of Rp.4,090,248,108 as additional income revenue which is subject to Article 15 final Income Tax; Whereas towards the result of examiner’s opinion, Appellant firmly objected with the following reasons: a. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement; b. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; c. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; d. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as income tax; e. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract, B. According to Appellee, shipping services income which has been deducted by Article 15 Income Tax is in the amount of Rp.64,584,542,554.00 meanwhile according to Appellant it is in the amount of Rp.61,490,898,479.00. Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Directorate General of Taxation No.KEP-1884WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007. Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee No KEP- 1884WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning objection towards Decision Letter of Income Taxes Paid in Deficit Article 15 for taxation period of January-December 2002 No. 000012410207306 dated 3 October 2006, thus the Article 15 Income Tax for taxation period of January until December 2002 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base Rp.38,691,189,297.00 Article 15 Income Tax Expense Rp. 479,826,102.00 Tax Credit: Rp. 443,590,236.00 Overpayment of Article 15 Income Tax: Rp. 36,235,866,00 Administrative Sanction Rp. 17,393,216.00 Outstanding Amount: Rp. 53,629,982.00 89 89 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-559SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3216A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

f. Ruling No. 22489PPM.I.15.2010 dated 8 March 2010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1864WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning response to objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax Year 2004 No. 000232060407306 dated 3 October 2006 Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No, KEP- 1864WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No, 4468A,12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax year 2004 No. 0000232060407306 dated 3 October 2006, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas the taxation dispute between Appellant and Appellee started during examination process conducted by Central Jakarta Tax Office, continued by Central Jakarta Regional Office Director General of Taxation during the objection process, However, Appellant rejected the results from both examination stages, because according to Appellant, the examination results were different from its factual condition, The Appellee included a series of transactions as additional income of the company, as follows: 1. Correction of income incurred from sale of vessel Rp.15,051,539,282.00 Whereas according to Appellee, the Hire Purchase transactions for 2 units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Persero is regarded as a regular sale and purchase transaction which results in increase of company’s income, this is denied by Appellant because: Whereas pursuant to contract No. HK.56619C.Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article 13 1 with Pelindo II, it is stipulated that at the end of contract period in 2008, a transfer of ownership shall occur upon settlement by Pelindo of its installment obligations; Whereas according to Appellee the amount which must be settled by installment for the period of 60 months has been acknowledged as income from sales, thus becomes liable to tax, However, the vessel ownership still lies with the company and is not transferred to Pelindo, unless all installment obligations have been fully settled by Pelindo; Whereas if at present, such installments are acknowledged as income from sales, what if Pelindo is unable to settle its installment obligations, and no transferassignment of vessel ownership occurs; Whereas, as such, during installment period, the payments should be considered as down payment, and sales income shall be acknowledged at the end of installment period, whereby all down paymentsinstallments have been settled; 2. Correction of loss incurred from currency difference Rp.1,699,461,388.00 Whereas during the course of Appellant’s business activities, loss and gain from foreign exchange have occurred, whereby in taxation year 2004, resulted in net loss of foreign exchange in the amount of Rp.2,085,811,915.00 less gross income with no outstanding final VAT, 90 90 Whereas Appellee conducted correction of net loss due to foreign exchange in the amount of Rp.1,699,461,388.00 because Appellee did not consider other transactions in foreign currency in relation to income with no outstanding final VAT, whereby it should be treated as income of expenses pursuant to general provisions Income Tax Law Article 17, Such has also been affirmed in a number of Letters from Director General of Taxation, among others Letter No.S-332PJ.422003 dated 30 June 2003 concerning Treatment of Income Tax on Gain and Loss of Foreign Exchange for Appellant which Income is Subject to Final Income Tax as attached; Whereas according to Appellant, the net amount of foreign exchange which may be deducted from gross income is Rp.2,085,811,915.00 Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation No. KEP-1864WPJBD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee Number: KEP-1864WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Corporate Income Tax taxation year 2004 No.000232060407306 dated 3 October 2006, therefore the 2004 Income Tax is recalculated as follows: Net Income cfm Tribunal: Rp.2,349,447,764.00 Compensation for Loss Rp. 0.00 Taxable Income Rp.2,349,447,000.00 Tax Income Expense Rp. 687,334,100.00 Tax Credit Rp. 71,231,038.00 Underpayment of Income Tax Rp. 616,103,062.00 Administrative Sanction Interest Article 13 2 Rp. 271,085,347.00 Outstanding Income Tax Rp. 887,188,409.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-562SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3198A,12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

g. Ruling No.22488PPM.I272010 dated 8 March 2010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-1870WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning response to objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Income Tax Article 15 for taxation period of January-December 2003 No. 000012410307306 dated 3 October 2006, Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No, KEP-1870WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Partial Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No.4464A.12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Income Tax Article 15 for taxation period of January-December 2003 No.000012410307306 dated 3 October 2006, therefore in accordance with Article 27 1 Law No. 16 Year 2000 on General Provisions and Procedure of Taxation; Whereas the taxation dispute between Appellant and Appellee started during examination process conducted by Central Jakarta Tax Office, continued by Central Jakarta Regional Office Director General of Taxation during the objection process, However, Appellant rejected some of the results from both examination stages, because according to Appellant, the examination results were different from its factual condition and situation on field, among others: A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party in the amount of Rp.4,667,550,449,00 as additional 91 91 income revenue which is subject to Article 15 final Income Tax; Whereas towards the result of examiner’s opinion, Appellant firmly objected with the following reasons: a. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement; b. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; c. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; d. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as income tax; e. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract, B. According to Appellee, shipping services income which has been deducted by Article 15 Income Tax is in the amount of Rp.69,676,724,104.00 meanwhile according to Appellant it is in the amount of Rp.65,232,784,514.00. Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation No. KEP-1870WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007. Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee No KEP- 1870WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Income Tax Article 15 for taxation period of January-December 2003 No.000012410307306 dated 3 October 2006, thus the Article 15 Income Tax for taxation period of January until December 2003 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base: Rp.37,349,152,263.00 Article 15 Income Tax Expense: Rp. 448,189,827.00 Tax credit: Rp. 442,609,857.00 Underpayment of Article 15 Income Tax: Rp. 5,579,970.00 Administrative Sanction Rp. 2,678,385.00 Outstanding Amount: Rp. 8,258,355.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-561SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3197A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

h. Ruling No. 22491PPM.I162010 dated 8 March 2010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-075WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning response to objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for taxation period of January-December 2002 No.000012070307306 dated 6 November 2006. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No.KEP-075WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Appellant Objection Letter towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No.485A.12I07 dated 31 January 2007 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for taxation period of January-December 2003 No. 000012070307306 dated 6 November 2006, therefore in accordance with Article 27 1 Law No. 16 Year 2000 on General 92 92 Provisions and Procedure of Taxation, the Appellant hereby applies for appeal to Taxation court to such ruling; Whereas Appellee included a series of transactions as additional company income thus become liable to tax, namely by including all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party in the amount of Rp.4,090,248,108.00 as additional income revenue which is subject to Value Added Tax; Whereas towards the result of examiner’s opinion, Appellant firmly objected with the following reasons: a. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement; b. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; c. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; d. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as income tax; e. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract, Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation No. KEP-075WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008. Ruling : Grant all of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee No KEP-075WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for taxation period of January-December 2002 No. 000012070207306 dated 6 November 2006, thus the Article 15 Income Tax for taxation period of January until December 2002 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base: Rp.71,083,808,857.00 VAT-Out: Rp. 1,299,402,090.00 VAT-In: Rp. 1,254,501,993.00 VAT Underpayment: Rp. 44,900,097.00 Administrative Sanction Interest Article 13 2 KUP Rp. 21,552,046.00 Outstanding Amount: Rp. 66,452,143.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-564SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation, Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 31994A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

i. Ruling No.Put.22490PPM.I272010

Parties : 1.PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Dispute : KEP-1865WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning response to objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Article 15 Income Taxes for Taxation Period of January until December 2004 No. 000042410407306 dated 3 October 2006. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No. KEP- 1865WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning Objection towards Request 93 93 for Objection Letter of Appellant No. 4465A.12XII06 dated 26 December 2006 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Article 15 Income Taxes for year 2004 No, 000042410407306 dated 3 October 2006, therefore in accordance with Article 15 1 Law No, 16 Year 2000 concerning General Taxation Provisions and Procedure KUP, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; PT Wintermar as Appellant objected to the examination conducted by the Examiner which were different from its factual condition and situations on field, The Examiner has: A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party in the amount of Rp.15,881,231,595.00 as additional income revenue which is subject to Article 15 final Income Tax; Whereas towards the result of examiner’s opinion, Appellant firmly objected with the following reasons: 1. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement, There are 2 categories of reimbursements applicable in such agreements, as follows: a Appellant conducted payment first for all expenses incurred by shipping companies which enter into charter contracts with its customers chartering party with certain reasons for expenses which must be incurred by such shipping company, Wintermar shall afterwards invoice the shipping company for reimbursement of such expenses, As such, it is clear that such reimbursement received by Appellant is not an income from transporting services for persons andor goods or vessel vessel charter as referred to in definition of gross distribution which acts as basis for calculation of Article 15 Income Tax pursuant to Decree of Minister of Finance No: 416KMK,041996, Therefore in this regard, Appellant does not provide any chartering services, thus such reimbursement is not subject to outstanding final Income Tax, b Appellant as a Charter Services Provider Shipping Company enters into charter contracts with chartering parties, whereas such contracts clearly separate charter fees and reimbursement; Whereas such reimbursement fee is mostly for fuel expenses and other materials required for operational of vessel, whereby Appellant conducted payment first and shall later invoice the Chartering Party for reimbursement, Provision on final Income Tax outstanding income is applicable on income from transporting persons or goods using vessels, But not applicable for reimbursement for such material expenses stipulated above; Whereas some of Appellant’s considerations are in regard to deduction of article 23 Income Tax, pursuant to Decision of Appellee No. 170PJ2002 article 12 is stipulated as follows: ”Gross amount for other services aside from construction and catering services is the amount of compensation paid only for provision of services, unless if no differentiation between provision of services and material of goods is provided in the contractagreement, shall be imposed on total contract value” Whereas the same principle must be applied in deduction of Article 15 final Tax Income whereby only the charter fees which shall be subject to final outstanding tax, if such charter contract differentiates between charter fees and material; 2. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; 3. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; 4. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as the company’s tax input; 94 94 5. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract; Whereas the Appellant firmly denies the examiner’s opinion which stated such reimbursement as Appellant’s effort to distort tax object, because such opinion has no basis and is merely a justification of the examiner’s opinion, Meanwhile the reality on field in forms of supporting documents which have been submitted were not considered at all; B. According to Appellee, the shipping services income which has been deducted by Article 15 Income Tax is in the amount of Rp.74,615,890,140.00 meanwhile according to Appellant is in the amount of Rp.63,438,325,556.00 Claim : Cancel Decision of Director General of Taxation No.KEP-1865WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007. Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision of Appellee No KEP-1865WPJ.06BD.062007 dated 18 December 2007 concerning objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Article 15 Income Taxes for taxation period of January-December 2004 No, 000042410407306 dated 3 October 2006, in the name of PT Wintermar, Taxpayer Identification Number 01.001.081.7-073.000, address: Jln Raya Kebayoran Lama No, 155, West Jakarta 11560 thus the Article 15 Income Tax for taxation period of January until December 2004 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base : Rp.40,743,704,182.00 Article 15 Income Tax Expense : Rp. 445,539,625.00 Tax Credit : Rp. 416,732,851.00 Overpaid Article 15 Income Tax :Rp. 28,806,774.00 Administrative Sanction : Rp. 13,827,251.00 Outstanding Amount : Rp. 42,634,025.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-563SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Response towards Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3196A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

j. Tax Court No. Put.22492PPM.I162010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : Decision Letter of the Appellee No.KEP- 071WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning response to objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for year 2003 No. 000022070307306 dated 6 November 2006. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of the Appellee No. KEP- 071WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No. 0485A.12I07 dated 31 January 2007 of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for year 2003 No, 000022070307306 dated 6 November 2006, therefore in accordance with Article 27 1 Law No, 16 Year 2000 concerning General Taxation Provisions and Procedure KUP, the Appellant hereby appeals to the Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas, Appellant applied for such appeal because the arguments and results of examination conducted by the Examiner were different from its factual condition and situation on field; Whereas Appellee included a series of transactions as additional company income thus become liable to VAT, among others: 95 95 A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party as additional income revenue which is subject to 10 VAT; Whereas, in regard to Examiner’s opinion, Appellant applied for Appeal with the following reasons: 1. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement, There are 2 categories of reimbursements applicable in such agreements, as follows: a Appellant conducted payment first for all expenses incurred by shipping companies which enter into charter contracts with its customers chartering party with certain reasons for expenses which must be incurred by such shipping company, Appellant shall afterwards invoice the shipping company for reimbursement of such expenses; b Appellant as a Charter Services Provider Shipping Company enters into charter contracts with chartering parties, whereas such contracts clearly separate charter fees and reimbursement; Whereas such reimbursement fee is mostly for fuel expenses and other materials required for operational of vessel, whereby Appellant conducted payment first and shall later invoice the Chartering Party for reimbursement without any mark ups on the reimbursement,; 2. Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; 3. Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; 4. Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as the company’s tax input; 5. Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract; B. Included the Bare Boat Hire Purchase for 2 two units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Pelindo II Persero as common sales and purchase transactions which result in increase of company income and is subject to outstanding VAT 10, In this regard, the Appellant firmly denied such inclusion due to the following reasons: Whereas, pursuant to contract No, HK,56619C,Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article13 1 with Pelindo II, at the end of contract period year 2008 a conditional transfer of ownership shall occur upon settlement of Pelindo’s installment obligations; Whereas, according to examiner, the amount paid as installment for the period of 60 months has been acknowledged as sales income thus a recalculation was conducted on sales amount for 2004 proportion and the VAT on such recalculation, However, the vessel ownership still lies with the company and shall not be transferred to Pelindo, unless all installment obligations have been fully settled by Pelindo; Whereas if at present, such installments are acknowledged as income from sales, what if Pelindo is unable to settle its installment obligations, and no transferassignment of vessel ownership occurs; Whereas, as such, during installment period, the payments should be considered as down payment, and sales income shall be acknowledged at the end of installment period, whereby all down paymentsinstallments have been settled; Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation Number: KEP-071WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008. Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request on Decision of Appellee No: KEP- 071WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Objection towards Request for Objection Letter of Appellant No, 0485A.12I07 dated 31 January 2007 of Underpayment Tax 96 96 Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for year 2003 No. 000022070307306 dated 6 November 2006, thus Value Added Tax for Taxation Period of January-December 2003 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base Rp.84,043,112, 233.00 VAT-Out Rp. 2,218,784,589.00 VAT-In Rp. 2,203,109,422.00 VAT Underpayment Rp. 15,675,167.00 Administrative Sanction Interest Article 13 2 KUP Rp. 7,524,080.00 Total outstanding amount Rp. 23,199,247.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Judicial Review Memorandum No: PK No.S-6014PJM.I162010 dated 2 July 2010 submitted by Director General of Taxation. Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3217A,12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar,

k. Ruling No. 22493PPM.I162010

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP-106WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 28 January 2008 concerning response of objection to Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Tax for Goods and Services for Taxation Period of January until December 2004 No.000402070407306 dated 6 November 2006. Case Position : Whereas, Appellant applied for such appeal because the arguments and results of examination conducted by the Appellee were different from its factual condition and situation on field; Whereas Appellee included a series of transactions as additional company income thus become liable to VAT, among others: A. Included all payment received by Appellant in form of reimbursement from numerous customersvessel chartering party as additional income revenue which is subject to 10 VAT; Whereas, in regard to Examiner’s opinion, Appellant applied for Appeal with the following reasons: a. Whereas in regard to Appellant’s business conduct, an agreement was established between Appellant and shipping companies and chartering parties, whereby Appellant is requested to conduct payment of expenses borne by such parties first and later Appellant may request for reimbursement, There are 2 categories of reimbursements applicable in such agreements, as follows: Appellant conducted payment first for all expenses incurred by shipping companies which enter into charter contracts with its customers chartering party with certain reasons for expenses which must be incurred by such shipping company, Appellant shall afterwards invoice the shipping company for reimbursement of such expenses without any mark up on the reimbursements; Whereas reimbursement received by Appellant from its customers is not regarded as additional income but as common reimbursement, because all invoices issued by Appellant shall be paid with debit note mechanism with no mark up; Whereas the debit notes issued by Appellant to its customers are also attached with invoice from relevant suppliers; Whereas all such invoices are inclusive of 10 VAT for this transaction, therefore Appellant did not creditclaim such VAT as the company’s tax input; Whereas all such conditions are common conditions which often occur in shipping business to maintain smooth filed work, and have been governed and agreed by company and customer in each vessel chartering contract; Included the Bare Boat Hire Purchase for 2 two units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Pelindo II Persero as common sales and purchase transactions which 97 97 result in increase of company income and is subject to outstanding VAT 10, In this regard, the Appellant firmly denied such inclusion due to the following reasons: Whereas, pursuant to contract No, HK,56619C,Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article13 1 with Pelindo II, at the end of contract period year 2008 a conditional transfer of ownership shall occur upon settlement of Pelindo’s installment obligations; Whereas, according to the Appellee, the amount paid as installment for the period of 60 months has been acknowledged as sales income thus a recalculation was conducted on sales amount for 2004 proportion and the VAT on such recalculation, However, the vessel ownership still lies with the company and shall not be transferred to Pelindo, unless all installment obligations have been fully settled by Pelindo; Whereas if at present, such installments are acknowledged as income from sales, what if Pelindo is unable to settle its installment obligations, and no transferassignment of vessel ownership occurs; Whereas, as such, during installment period, the payments should be considered as down payment, and sales income shall be acknowledged at the end of installment period, whereby all down paymentsinstallments have been settled; Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation Number KEP-106WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 28 January 2008. Ruling : Grant all of Appellant’s appeal request on Decision of Appellee No: KEP-106WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 28 January 2008 concerning Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for taxation period of January-December 2004 No.000402070407306 dated 6 November 2006, under the name of PT WINTERMAR, Taxpayer Registration Number or NPWP : 01.001.081.7-073.000, address: Jln, Kebayoran Lama No. 155 Jakarta 11560, thus Value Added Tax for Taxation Period of January-December 2004 is recalculated to become as follows: Tax Base Rp.92,255,564,240.00 VAT-Out Rp. 6,104,816,277.00 VAT-In Rp. 6,063,151,237.00 VAT Underpayment Rp. 41,665,040.00 Administrative sanction interest Article13 2 KUP Rp. 20,011,018.00 Outstanding Amount Rp. 61,676,058.00 Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-566SP.51VII2010 dated 14 July 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Response towards Judicial Review Memorandum Number 3215A.12VIII2010 dated 10 August 2010 from PT Wintermar.

l. Ruling No.Put.19307PPM.I162009 dated 10 August 2009

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee Object of Claim : KEP 073WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Response of Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for Export Goods and Services year 2003 No.000012270307306 dated 6 November 2008. Case Position : Whereas in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of Appellee No: KEP-073WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Rejection towards Appellant’s request of objection letter No. 0483A.12I07 dated 31 January 2007 concerning Letter of Decision of Value Added Taxes Paid in Deficit for Import Services and Good SKPKB for year 2003 No. 000012270307306 dated 6 November 2006, thus in accordance with article 27 1 of Law No, 16 Year 2000 concerning General Taxation Provisions and Procedures, the Appellant hereby applies for an appeal to Taxation Court for such ruling. Whereas, Appellant applied for such appeal because the arguments and results of examination conducted by the Appellee were different from its factual condition and situation on field; 98 98 Whereas Appellee has included the Bare Boat Hire Purchase for 2 two units of vessels to Pelabuhan Indonesia II Pelindo II Persero as common sales and purchase transactions which result in transfer of ownership; Whereas, according to the Appellee, the amount paid as installment for the period of 60 months must be acknowledged as sales or transfer of both units of vessels, thus a violation is deemed to occur towards article 5 of Government Regulation No, 38 Year 2003 on “Import andor delivery of certain taxable goods andor services which are not subject to imposition of VAT”, In this regard, the Appellant firmly denied such statement because pursuant to contract No, HK,56619C,Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, article13 1 with Pelindo II, only at the end of contract period year 2008 a conditional transfer of ownership shall occur upon settlement of Pelindo’s installment obligations and therefore presently the vessel ownership still remains with the company; Whereas, as such, during installment period, the payments should be considered as down payment, and sales income shall be acknowledged at the end of installment period, whereby all down paymentsinstallments have been settled; Meanwhile according to Examiner, pursuant to Hire Purchase contract by and between PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II Cab, Tanjung Priok hereinafter referred to as PT Pelindo II and Appellant concerning procurement of Tug Boat with bare boat hire purchase system No: HK,56619C,Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, the tax subject conducted such hire purchase transaction on both vessels in the amount of US9,768,033 with down payment of US617,145 and monthly installment of US76,257 for the period of 60 months five years, Whereas for such vessel procurement, PT Wintermar purchased both vessels from Oliver Resources Ltd Singapore with contract value of US6,400,000, The import for such vessels utilized the VAT Free Statement Letter facility for import of BKP hereinafter referred to as SKB PPN No: Ket-02WPJ.06KP.03072003 dated 3 July 2003 and Ket-05WPJ.06KP.03072003 dated 23 September 2003, thus import for both vessels are free from VAT with one of the condi- tions that such vessels shall not be transferred to other parties for five years, Whereas in the hire purchase contract between PT Pelindo II and Appellant No: HK,56619C, Tpk-03 dated 17 January 2003, the sale price has covered purchase price and gross margin, whereby purchase price of both vessels is US3,368,033 for the period of 5 five years. As such, the examiner concluded that Tax Subject has sold both Tug Boats hereinafter referred to as Bima 34 and Bima 35 by way of installments for 5 five years, thus provision of SKB PPN must be cancelled and Tax Subject is obliged to repay its Import VAT, which was previously released pursuant to SKB PPN; Whereas transfer of Bima 34 and Bima 35 vessels with value of Rp.59,028,393,600, which was initially categorized as Article 16D is now re-classified into Import VAT which must be repaid; Whereas the above is necessary because substance of transaction results in violation of SKB PPN which releases Import Vat, thus Appellant must pay such released Import VAT. Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation Number KEP-073WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008. Ruling : Grant all of Appellant’s appeal request on Decision of Appellee No: KEP-073WPJ.06BD,062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for Import Goods and Services for taxation period of January-December 2003 No, 000012270307306 dated 6 November 2006, thus Value Added Tax for Taxation Period of January-December 2003 becomes Nil; Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-825SP.51XII2009 dated 3 December 2009, submitted by Director General of Taxation, Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 0046A.12I2010 dated 7 January 2010 from PT Wintermar,

m. Ruling No.Put.19597PPM.I162009 dated 31 August 2009

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee 99 99 Object of Claim : KEP-076WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Response of Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Tax for Imported Goods and Services for taxation year 2002 No. 000012270207306 dated 6 November 2006. Case Position : Whereas, in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of Appellee No: KEP-076WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Rejection towards Appellant’s request of objection letter No. 0488A.12I07 dated 31 January 2007 concerning Letter of Decision of Value Added Taxes Paid in Deficit for Import Services and Good SKPKB for year 2002 No.000012270307306 dated 6 November 2006, thus in accordance with article 27 1 of Law No.16 Year 2000 concerning General Taxation Provisions and Procedures, the Appellant hereby applies for an appeal to Taxation Court for such ruling; Whereas, Appellant applied for such Appeal Letter because the arguments and results of examination conducted by the Appellee were different from its factual condition and situation on field; Whereas Appellee has included TB ES ARIES vessel purchase transaction by Appellant from Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd as a transaction which is subject to import VAT pursuant to Decree of Minister of Finance No: 525KMK.041998; Whereas, Appellant has denied Appellee’s opinion at both, the Taxation Services Office and Regional Office levels during objection process. According to Appellant, KMK No: 252KMK.041998 used by Appellee as basis in this transaction is incorrect because such KMK only mentions capital goods such as machines and factory equipments in both assembled and non-assembled conditions required to produce Taxable Goods, meanwhile Appellant’s import is in form of vessel and not machines and factory equipments; Whereas, during the course of transaction, the Import VAT on purchase of vessel is categorized as Taxable Goods which VAT is borne by the government; Meanwhile, according to Examiner, with correction of import VAT in the amount of Rp.2,969,958,000, because TB ES Aries vessel was purchasedimported from Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd, Singapore in 2000, provision of article 3 1 SKMK No: KEP-252KMK.041998 is applicable, whereas import shall require a PPN DTP statement letter; Whereas, because such vessel is an imported vessel which was free from import VAT but has been transferredsold before the required period five years, Appellant is obliged to repay Import VAT for TB ES Aries vessel whereby pursuant to NOS.SLESA28.0900 agreement dated 28 September 2000 between Seacoral Maritime Pte Ltd seller and Appellant it was agreed that the purchase price shall be SGD 600,000 equal to Rp.2,969,958,000, Minister of Finance currency dated 28 September 2000, 1 SGD=Rp.4,949.93 Whereas, as such, TB ES Aries vessel which was initially article 16D VAT object is reclassified to become import VAT which must be repaid with import value of Rp.2,969,958,000. Claim : Cancel Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation Number KEP-076WPJ.06BD.062008 dated 25 January 2008. Ruling : Grant all of Appellant’s appeal request on Decision of Appellee No: KEP-076WPJ.06BD,062008 dated 25 January 2008 concerning Objection of Underpayment Tax Assessment Letter of Value Added Taxes for Import Goods and Services for taxation period of January-December 2002 No, 000012270207306 dated 6 November 2006, thus Value Added Tax for Taxation Period of January-December 2003 becomes Nil. Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Notification for Application of Judicial Review and Submission of Judicial Review Memorandum No: MPK-002SP.51XII2010 dated 13 January 2010, submitted by Director General of Taxation. Letter of Response to Judicial Review Memorandum Number 0043A.12II2010 dated 1 February 2010 from PT Wintermar.

n. Ruling No.Put. 06543PPM.I102005 dated 4 October 2005

Parties : 1. PT Wintermar as Appellant 2. Director General of Taxation as Appellee 100 100 Object of Claim : KEP-94WPJ.6BD.032004 dated 12 April 2004 concerning Response of Objection of Underpay- ment Tax Assessment Letter of Article 21 Income Taxyear 2001 No: 000502010102903 dated 26 February 2003. Case Position : Whereas, in regard to issuance of Decision Letter of Appellee No: KEP-94WPJ.06BD.032004 dated 12 April 2004 concerning Rejection towards Appellant’s request of objection letter No. 2.129A-12IV03 dated 15 March 2003 concerning Letter of Decision of 21 Income Tax Paid in Deficit year 2001 No: 000502010102903 dated 26 February 2003, thus in accordance with article 27 1 of Law No, 16 Year 2000 concerning General Taxation Provisions and Procedures KUP, the Appellant hereby applies for an appeal to Taxation Court for such ruling. Whereas the taxation dispute between Appellant and Appellee started during examination process conducted by Gambir Tiga Tax Services Office, continued by Jakarta I Regional Office Director General of Taxation during the objection process, However, Appellant rejected all of the results from both examination stages, because according to Appellant, all of the examination results were different from its factual condition and situation on field, and not all supporting data which has been submitted by Appellant was used during the determination of final decision; Whereas, a number of objections from Appellant on results of previous examinations are as follows: 1 Assets Account Whereas Appellee determined the amount of Rp.57,015,704, with amount subject to Article 21 Income Tax of Rp.2,850,789, Meanwhile, all such expenses were purchase expenses for communication devices and transportation expenses for Appellant’s crews leaving or departing to the vessel such as plane tickets, accommodations and papers expenses for other crews, all were issued by Appellant to third parties, not to relevant personnel, thus the Appellee’s opinion that such expenses are subject to Article 21 Income Tax is firmly denied by Appellant because all such expenses are not additional income for relevant personnel; Whereas, Appellant noticed that from such expenses, some of them are pocket money which is the personnel’s income but has not been deducted by tax by the Appellant, Therefore, Appellant acknowledged pocket money expenses of Rp.3,809,500, with outstanding tax of Rp.190,475. 2 Direct Expenses Account Whereas Appellee recorded a number of expenses in this account amounting to Rp.579,249,943, from such amount Rp.28,962,497 is subject to Article 21 Income Tax, Meanwhile all such expenses are company operational expenses such as food for crews, mutation expenses for crew, medical check-up for crew, spare part delivery cost, duty travel expenses for land personnel who shall departreturn to vessel and a number of expenses incurred to arrange for a crew who died on duty, all expenses which are subject to Article 21 Income Tax are not additional income for personnel, thus Appellee’s opinion is firmly denied by Appellant because it is against article 4 Law No. 17 Year 2000 concerning Income Tax which stipulated that Tax Object is income, namely ”any additional economic ability received or obtained by Appellant, both domestic and offshore, which may be used for consumption or to gain wealth,” However, Appellant also noticed its mistake during payment whereas there is a lease fee in relation to transport of vessel during vessel rescue process in Baru Island which has not been deducted yet by Appellant in the amount of Rp.51,221,611, with outstanding tax of Rp.614,659, 3 Indirect Expenses Account Whereas Appellee obtained the figure Rp.285,523,462, with outstanding tax of Rp.14,276,173, as outstanding Article 21 Income Tax expenses, Meanses during its travel to participate in a tender process, and cellular phone usage fees to facilitate communication process, and a number of expenses for office household expenses such as charity for Santo Vincentius Foster Home, condolences bouquet and entertainment in form of parcels for a few of Appellant’s customers, all these expenses are not subject to personnel’s Article 21 income tax object, because they are not additional economic ability for personnelrecipient, and they are supported by receipt of payment by Appellant, therefore Appellant hereby firmly denied Appellee’s opinion; Whereas, in regard to this indirect expenses account, Appellant noticed a mistake during payment, thus there are success fee and consultancy services fee in the total amount of Rp.82,511,500, with outstanding tax amount of Rp.4,914,725 which have not been deducted 101 101 by the Appellant, therefore Appellant acknowledged its mistake and the outstanding tax amount above, Whereas, a number of objections which Appellant have stipulated in this appeal, with this appeal process, Appellant as Appellant expects to be treated more fairly and more transparent in accordance with prevailing regulations in Indonesia, thus the taxation court’s function as final for- tress in taxation dispute in Indonesia may be achieved; Ruling : Grant some of Appellant’s appeal request towards Decision Letter of Director General of Taxation No: KEP-94WPJ.06BD,032003 dated 12 April 2004 concerning Underpayment Assessment Letter of Article 21 Income Tax No: 000502010102903 dated 26 February 2003, thus the outstanding Article 21 Income Tax for Taxation Year 2001 is as follows: Tax Base Rp.2,575,172,453, Article 21 Income Tax Expense Rp. 128,758,623, Tax Credit: Annual and monthly payment Rp. 52,913,237, - Compensation of surplus to the following year Rp. 679,937, Credited tax Rp. 52,233,300 Outstanding amount of Principal Tax Rp. 76,525,323, Administrative sanction: Interest article 132 KUP Rp. 21,427,090, Outstanding amount Rp. 97,952,413, Case Status : Judicial review process in accordance with Letter No: 0128A,12I06 dated 9 January 2006 con- cerning Judicial Review on Decision of Taxation Court No.Put,06543PPM,I102005, Whereas the said legal cases disputes have no impact on the sustainability of the business of the Company nor on this Public Offering plan. 102 102

VIII. Activities and Business Prospects of the Company