RE:Please keep your emotions under control Hi Reza. Yesterday I found some documents that could be crucial to understand what happened on July 2018:
https://www.ingemmet.gob.pe/igm-sidemcat-portlet/ver-documento?cod_exp=00229985&paginado=1&pag_ini=20&pag_fin=29 The facts can be summarized as follows:
1. On the first half of 2018, MINEM commisioned PWC to make a country-wide review of mining claims, and in their final report they concluded that Macusani Yellowcake hasn't invested enough in the 32 mining claims, so they should pay the Penalty for year 2016. Here I have to point out that the Penalty isn't the same as the Validity Rights; the latter has to be payed by for every claim, o matter how much you invested in the year.
2. Because of the said PWC review, the list of claims whose owners had to pay for the Penalty was available later than normal. After seeing that a Penalty was erroneously being charged for its 32 mining claims, Macusani complained to MINEM, because they had invested enough in these claims. Although MINEM issued a resolution accepting Macusani's petition and so exonerated the 32 mining claims from the Penalty, the problem began because this resolution was issued on July 2nd, after 4:00pm, just ad the deadline to pay for the Validity Rights!!
3. Macusani staff hurried up to pay for the Validity Rights but it seems it was already too late, at least in the Mining Council's point of view. Was it necessary to wait for the Penalty's conffirmation to pay for the Validity Rights? It seems so from the request Ulises Solis sent to INGEMMET on July 2nd (page 2 on the above link):
We request that, as soon as possible, the concessions described in Annex 1 (the 32 mining claims at risk) be excluded from the 2017 Penalty payment, in order to be able to make the corresponding payment of the Validity Rights To summarize, Macusani knew they have invested enough in these claims so they were entitled to not paying the Penalty. But, when they went to the bank the amount included the Penalty so they would have had to pay for both the Penalty and Validity Rights. When MINEM's answer arrived on July 2nd, they immediately told INGEMMET to make the change and hurried up to pay, but it was too late. The penalty in question was for year 2016, and you can't pay 2017 without first paying 2016, and as as result Macusani couldn't pay for any of those years.
So the question remains, why didn't they explained this in the Appeal for Review? And, of course, was it the right thing to hide this facts from the market?