PAN Pain for Direct Investor

I had submitted PAN copy while making direct MF investment with FT in Mar-07.

On submitting an additional purchase request in Aug-07, I was informed that the PAN details are not available and I was asked to submit the PAN copy again - this time it was collected by the ISC after verifying with the original and I was told the PAN will be updated.

After 3 months, the recent account statements still show PAN as missing. On enquiring via e-mail with service@templeton.com, I got a standard response indicating the procedure to resubmit PAN details.

As a customer, I have already done the needful by submitting the PAN details. If the AMC has failed to record it, how is it fair to ask me to keep submitting the details again? I was not provided any receipt of PAN copy - I'm not sure if that is the standard practice others faced.

I'm beginning to wonder if this harassment is targetted towards customers making direct investments only? Any similar experiences others have faced in the recent past???

Inconsistencies in MF Offer

This is regarding the recent NFO - DWS Global Thematic Offshore fund

1. Inconsistency regarding Entry Load

The OD files with SEBI (draft version) indicates Entry Load as 2.25%.

www.sebi.gov.in/mfdp/dwsthem.pdf - Sec VII-A (Pg 23)

The Final OD available at DWS India site indicates Entry Load as 2.50%.

http://info.dws-india.com/in/homepage.nsf/doc/CZIZ-743C4Y/$file/DGTOFOD.pdf - Sec VII-A (Pg 22)

The KIM/ApplForm available at DWS India site indicates Entry Load as 2.75%.

http://info.dws-india.com/in/homepage.nsf/doc/CZIZ-743C4Y/$file/DGTOFKIM.pdf - Pg 2

As I understand, the Offer Document is the final reference document and overrides all other material. Accordingly, the Entry Load should be 2.50%. However, the distributor insists it is 2.75%. How is this possible under SEBI's watchful eyes???

2. Inconsistency regarding Investment Approach

The OD (in Sec V-A-3 at Pg 15) & KIM (at Pg 2) indicates that the scheme will invest in DWS Strategic Global Themes Fund, domiciled in Singapore (or similar funds). The OD (in Sec V-A-4 at Pg 16) further indicates DWS Strategic Global Themes Fund will be replicating the portfolio of DWS Global Thematic Fund domiciled in USA.

The Prospectus of the US Fund is available at this link:

https://www.dws-scudder.com/usmfWeb/s_stat/pdf/prospectus/gloint.pdf

The draft Prospectus for DWS Strategic Themes fund (registered with MAS) is available at this link:

http://masnet.mas.gov.sg/opera/sdrprosp.nsf/281ea02048bd8cc248256b6b000c1741/4994736533FCE7A4482572F2002989CB/$File/09%20Amended%20SIN%20Prospectus.pdf

Surprisingly, it does not make any mention to replicating the portfolio strategy of DWS Global Thematic Fund domiciled in USA.
I tried to review the final Prospectus at http://intl.dws-scudder.com/ but apparently that is not for public viewing...
Is this kind of scamming of investing public permitted by SEBI???

3. Inconsistency regarding expense ratio

The OD (in Sec VII-B-2 at Pg 22) & KIM (at Pg 2) indicates that the expense ratio will be 0.75% (max permitted by SEBI for FoF). The KIM further indicates that the expected expense ratio of underlying fund is 1.5%
The Prospectus (in Sec 9 at Pg 9) of underlying Singapore fund indicates expected expense ratio (Mgmt Fee + Trustee Fee) as (1.3%+0.075%) and max expense ratio as (1.5%+0.25%). Additional charges of 0.1% are also indicated. How can we correlate these numbers with KIM?
The Prospectus (at Pg 20) of US based fund indicates expense ratio (Mgmt Fee + Others) of 1.28% (0.99% + 0.29%). Considering that the Singapore fund merely replicated the portfolio, how can the Mgmt fee (which is passed thru to investors of Indian fund) of that be greater than US fund? Do these numbers look weird only to me???

Any thoughts on this potential scancal would be welcome.