- 79 -
36(...continued)
of--were the state of Parana the recipient of the
interest on which the union would claim a tax, I would
recognize the immunity. However, we are in a different
situation in this case in which the recipient of the
interest is a third party, and in this case the
immunity does not apply.
Q. I wasn't particularly talking about the
* * * [Parana I--1st Panel and Parana I--Full
Bench decisions]; I was talking about some of the other
cases we discussed.
A. Oh, the other, the two, I would say they
should be approached with two qualifications. The
first one is that they all concern, except for one,
Resolution 63 loans, which is a different thing. And
most important in that, none of these loans which were
dealt with in these other cases were import financing;
they were all, the three or the five of them, if you
compute all of them, straightforward currency loans.
And as we were discussing yesterday, the Decree Law
401, which the court applied or argued in all these
cases, only * * * [applies] to import financing and not
to currency loans.
That's the two main reservations or qualifications
that apply to these precedents of the Supreme Court.
Q. So you acknowledge that the Supreme Court
cases we discussed yesterday did not involve import
financing, correct?
A. Yes. In the--my--the main criticism they may
be subject to is that although they do not involve
import financing, they apply one legal provision which
applies only to import financing. That's the big
contradiction of these decisions, and that's their weak
point.
Q. That's the reason you think the decisions are
wrong or you [are in] disagreement with them, right?
A. Well, I disagree with them, yes. Sure.
Q. Okay.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011