| Summary: | This research was intended to identify and understand whether decision of
confiscation order letter over confiscated goods (SPPBS) issued by PUPN is
appropriate or not being sued in administrative court and to identify and
understand auction report issued by class II auction official that can be cancelled
through state administrative court.
This research used normative juridical approach. Data used in this research
is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary law material. The
data is collected through library study with documentary study technique. Primary
data obtained from interview with informant was analyzed qualitatively with
descriptive method.
The result indicated that plaintiff�s suit in dispute number 531
K/TUN/2002 is less appropriate submitted to administrative court because
decision of SPPBS come from unpaid credit agreement from state-owned bank
that its content subject to civil law action that lead to auction in civil procedure,
which is exemption of Article 2 paragraph a of Law on PTUN. SPPBS is not final
because it requires follow up from other institution that is state auction office
presented in auction report. SPPBS did not lead to legal effect for plaintiff
because there is no transfer of right of collateral object to others. Therefore, the
claim should be better sent to district court because its content is dispute on civil
ownership that is under authority of district court. Auction report issued by class
II auction official cannot be nullified through state administrative court, because
the auction report did not meet perfectly elements of state administrative decision,
particularly elements of state administrative decision object, in which auction
report contain minute of auction containing civil law on civil sell-buy transaction,
which is exemption from article 2 paragraph a of Law on PTUN so the claim
should be better sent to general court.
|
|---|