In keeping with the recent Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling, Guyana has implemented the Common External Tariff (CET) on cement coming from sources out of the region but it continues to question whether Trinidad Cement Ltd (TCL) can provide the quantity and quality of cement demanded by the region.
Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon yesterday said that soon after Guyana’s attempt to have a stay of the CCJ’s ruling was rejected the government reinstated the CET.
However, Dr Luncheon, the government’s chief spokesperson, said the company has failed in its responsibility to supply the region with cement and it is not only Guyana which is having that problem.
“Across the region the demand for cement is at an all time high… Guyana and other CARICOM states contend that the ability of TCL, the regional supplier, to adequately and reliably service the need of the region is inadequate. TCL cannot perform to the expectation of the region,” Dr Luncheon argued.
He said since the legal action taken against Guyana by the company, reports have been surfacing “more and more about TCL’s inability to meet its contractual obligations currently on the domestic scene.”
According to Dr Luncheon the technical standard of the company’s supply is being questioned and has led to delays in them meeting their contractual commitments and it has impacted negatively on logistics.
“Even with its commitment now limited to bagging and distribution, this is what TCL offers Guyana in the context of the agreement…, the concerns about TCL’s ability continue unabated,” he added.
TCL and subsidiary TCL Guyana Inc. (TGI) filed contempt proceedings at the CCJ against the Guyana government due to the administration’s failure to implement the CET on cement from extra-regional sources. Prior to this, the CCJ ruled in August that the Government of Guyana was in breach of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) by failing to apply the CET on cement and therefore ordered that within 28 days from that date, Guyana implement and thereafter maintain the CET in respect of cement from non-CARICOM sources. Subsequently, Guyana made an application to CARICOM to waive the CET on cement and the request was turned down before the 28-day deadline.
TCL and TGI had accused the Guyana government of breaching the RTC by unilaterally suspending the CET on cement imported from countries outside of CARICOM and was later granted leave to sue the government after approaching the CCJ. The court in its ruling on August 20, 2009 held the view that TCL and TGI are entitled to the benefit of having the CET maintained.
TCL owns 80% of the Guyana-based TGI which imports cement in bulk from TCL and Arawak Cement Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of TCL Inc. in Barbados.
Attorney General Charles Ramson had said that Guyana would reinstate the CET on cement as ordered by the CCJ, but he likened the court’s coercive order to “an act of sovereignty” saying that it borders on the kind of action that only nation states take against other nation states.
The CCJ had ruled that Guyana restore the tariff within 28 days, stating that without the coercive order there would be grave consequences for the rule of law in the single market – a directive which Ramson had said suggests that the court had assumed powers akin to that of sovereign states.
The AG had pronounced on the judgment of the court at a press conference soon after in which he declared that Guyana “is prepared to obey the order of the court”, but expressed surprise that the sitting CCJ judges made a mandatory order as opposed to a declaratory one.
“. . . it appears this judicial order is akin to an act of sovereignty, one only has to reflect and consider whether the judicial committee of the (UK) Privy Council would have made an order of that kind. I doubt it,” Ramson stated.
He had observed that declaratory orders made by any court are treated as mandatory by local laws. He said too courts like any other body empowered to do things have limited powers, adding that “they don’t have untrammeled powers.”
