Government has failed to honour a ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (ICJ) to pay Suriname company Rudisa Beverages some US$6,047,244.47 ($1.2 billion) over the collection of an environmental tax that contravenes the Revised Treaty of Chagua-ramas (RTC) and according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall this is because of the current non-sitting of the National Assembly.
It should be noted, however, that the CCJ’s judgment was made last May, which would have given the government enough time to make the necessary arrangements to see the sum being paid.
Speaking to Stabroek News last Friday, Nandlall said a supplementary paper had been laid in the National Assembly Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh, which contains a request for monies to pay that judgment. He said the paper was never considered by the National Assembly and therefore currently the government “has no money to pay the judgment.”
Asked when the paper was laid before the National Assembly, he said it was laid just before the last recess and was to be considered after the recess had ended.
The National Assembly went into recess last July and was scheduled to come out of recess in October. After that time passed and nothing was said by government about the likely date for resumption, it was expected that it would have reconvened sometime early in November.
However, on November 10 President Donald Ramotar issued a proclamation to prorogue Parlia-ment, effectively suspending sittings.
The paying of this judgment is likely to take even longer as Ramotar has already announced that he will be calling general elections this year and is expected to announce a date soon.
Asked if there was a deadline for payment, Nandlall responded in the affirmative, explaining that the deadline was the date the judgment was made.
Questioned about penalties the non-compliance might have attracted, the AG said, “The deadline has already expired and in this instance I am not sure because it is the country that is at default not any particular individual.”
Surinamese manufacturing company Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV and its Guyana subsidiary Caribbean International Distributors Inc had filed an application with the CCJ alleging that the imposition of the environmental tax by Guyana was a breach of the RTC. They argued that the tax was inconsistent with Caricom trade policy set out in Articles 78, 79, 87 and 90 of the RTC which provide for the free movement of goods and prohibitions on the imposition of import duties on Caricom goods. The two sought a declaration that the Guyana Customs Act violates either Article 87 or 90 of the RTC; an order compelling the State to amend or repeal the legislation to eliminate its discriminatory effect; an order restraining the imposition and collection of the tax and damages.
The companies had noted that the imposed tax on their goods raised the cost price on each imported container by $10. No similar tax is imposed on local producers of non-returnable beverage containers and, by the definition of “import duties” laid down in the RTC, the levy must be regarded as an import duty, they argued.
In the ruling which was made last May, the court also ordered Guyana to take the necessary legal or other measures to prevent the collection of the environmental tax on goods of Caricom origin. According to the ruling, the country is also obliged to file a report with the Court within six months on its compliance with the orders made.
The judgment, issued in the court’s original jurisdiction, could lead to similar claims against the government from Caricom companies on which the longstanding tax was levied. It was also made clear in the judgment that the political gridlock here will not absolve Guyana of liability in actions of this type.
Guyana had explained before the court that it had attempted to rectify the tax but that the measure failed in Parliament. In 2013, the Government brought legislation to the National Assembly to amend the Customs Act. However the combined opposition parties, APNU and AFC used their one-seat majority to block Government’s amendments to the Act following the administration’s refusal to postpone the consideration of the Cus-toms (Amendments) Bill 2013 in order to conclude promised consultations with the private sector.
The bill, which was read for the first time on January 10, 2013, had sought to lower the rate of the Environmental Tax charged on beverage containers while widening the range of bottles, cans and other receptacles that are subject to the tax.
Speaker after speaker on the government side had emphasized the importance of the passage of the bill to bring the country in conformity with its regional and international obligations, while also potentially protecting it from losing money in the recently concluded cases. However, both APNU and the AFC argued that it was the government that had placed the country in jeopardy by passing laws that do not conform to international standards.
