Examples of using Agrocomplect in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Agrocomplect's claim.
Recommended compensation for Agrocomplect 25.
However, Agrocomplect provided no details with respect to this item.
Table 2. Recommended compensation for Agrocomplect.
Agrocomplect did not provide copies of the relevant contracts.
With respect to the claim for the cost of evacuation by bus, Agrocomplect did not provide any proof of payment.
Agrocomplect was the main contractor on Contract No. 65, a US$95 million project.
The Panel finds that the customs declaration forms submitted by Agrocomplect adequately demonstrate that Agrocomplect had imported some plant and equipment into Iraq.
Agrocomplect provided a list of 10 categories of plant, equipment and machinery, together with their imputed value.
In support of its claim for loss ofuse of idle equipment and machinery, Agrocomplect submitted a letter dated 24 November 1991 to the Iraqi employer requesting compensation for equipment and machines contracted for, but not supplied.
Agrocomplect did not provide a copy of Contract No. 65 relating to the Hilla-Diwaniya 4 Project or the annex relating to zone 9.
Based on its findings regarding Agrocomplect's claim, the Panel recommends compensation in the amount of US$150,790. S/AC.26/1999/5.
Agrocomplect provided a set of photographs depicting the project site and offices which had obviously been ransacked and looted.
The Panel finds that Agrocomplect did not demonstrate that its losses on Contract No. 65 were the direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Agrocomplect further provided an inventory list of 602 items of machinery, equipment and vehicles that were imported into Iraq between 1979 and 1990.
Furthermore, Agrocomplect did not provide evidence of what the actual utilization rate was or how the unit price charged for the equipment was determined.
However, Agrocomplect failed to identify those items of imported plant and equipment which form the basis of its claim for loss of equipment and machinery.
Agrocomplect submitted copies of correspondence that was dated in October and November 1991 concerning its request for compensation from the Iraqi employer.
Agrocomplect did not provide evidence to substantiate that, but for Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the equipment and machinery would have been fully utilized.
Agrocomplect submitted a list of 12 items of equipment and materials, their respective invoice dates(between 20 April 1989 and 14 October 1990) and the amount of the invoices.
Finally, Agrocomplect did not provide any evidence of the bank guarantees or payment of such commissions. The Panel recommends no compensation for interest or for bank guarantee commissions.
Agrocomplect calculated its loss by multiplying the number of unexecuted“machine shifts”(number of items of each type of machinery multiplied by 137 working days) by the unit price for each machine shift.
Agrocomplect stated that four of these zones were completed and handed over to the Iraqi employer and that the remaining four zones were not handed over due to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Agrocomplect seeks compensation in the amount of US$55,934,647 for contract losses, tangible property losses, the evacuation of Bulgarian workers from Iraq and loss of business reputation.
Agrocomplect referred to a penalty clause in its contracts with subcontractors which requires a party in breach to pay 10 per cent of the contract amount as compensation to the other party in the event of default.
Agrocomplect did not give details of the age, cost or the basis used to determine the value of the assets. Agrocomplect also provided customs forms that demonstrate that Agrocomplect imported some plant and equipment into Iraq.
Agrocomplect also provided a letter dated 3 June 1992 from the Iraqi State Commission of Irrigation and Reclamation Projects to the Iraqi State Commission of Customs requesting a clearance certificate for Agrocomplect to settle the final account.
Agrocomplect did not submit supporting documentation evidencing its ownership or its importation of the equipment and materials into Iraq. The Panel finds that Agrocomplect did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate its loss of manufactured equipment and supplies.
Further, Agrocomplect did not submit a copy of its performance bond or correspondence concerning its unsuccessful attempts to secure its release of the bond. The Panel recommends no compensation for customs and tax clearance certificates or for the performance bond.
At that time, Agrocomplect stated that it was unable to continue on the project because of the economic blockade. Further, the Panel finds that Agrocomplect did not submit sufficient evidence to support its allegations that no documents exist regarding its contract losses.