Dear Editor,
First my appreciation for publishing my letter of July 26th on the above issue. I am pleased to note that others share my position and now some adverts have appeared in the print media. I also express thanks to the numerous persons who have called me and have spoken to me, with support for my position.
Secondly, I hold no brief for Banks DIH nor DDL, I have a duty to our people, especially those who have been elected as Members of Parliament between 1992 and 2015.
I restate my position that Government should not pay a dollar to Rudisa/CIDI. Since my letter I decided to go to the CCJ site to listen to the arguments in the case. I invite you to visit
http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/judgments-proceedings/audio-video-recordings
Also you can listen to the executive summary of the decision of the court on this site. Remember however, that these are the main arguments, but the written pleadings are more substantial.
After listening to three hours and five minutes of oral arguments and testimony of Rudisa/CIDI attorney and CFO, the former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and the learned CCJ judge the following are pellucid.
The CCJ ruled that Guyana did not produce any evidence to show that the Environmental Tax, which Rudisa/CIDI paid at the point of importing their beverages into Guyana, was passed on to consumers.
Rudisa/CIDI acknowledged that they under invoiced – that the parent company knowingly submitted invoices to CIDI that were below the true cost price of the goods.
Rudisa/CIDI said that they took a cut on their profit margin, in order to sell at a competitive price in the Guyana market.
Rudisa/CIDI said that 55% of its production is sold in Guyana
Rudisa/CIDI provided their documentation to substantiate what they paid as the environment tax. We thus will not herein, second guess the CCJ’s decision, but there is a larger Court, ‘The Court of Public Opinion’ i.e. the consumers and taxpayers of Guyana, who have paid and will again have to shoulder the financial burden if we do not fight against this greed by Rudisa/CIDI.
I appeal to you the consumers and taxpayers in Guyana to stand firm and united against our government paying anything to Rudisa/CIDI.
While the CCJ said that Guyana did not provide any evidence that the environmental tax was passed on to consumers, anyone in business would know that Rudisa/CIDI had to pass it on. Rudisa/CIDI did acknowledge that the effect was that they took a lower profit margin. So I leave it to you to make up your own mind.
On the issue of under invoicing, wow Guyana has now a serious case to bring against Rudisa/CIDI. Our tax laws allow the Commissioner to fix the value of imported goods, especially if he feels that the invoices reflect undervaluation of imports. We have the sworn testimony online of Rudisa/CIDI to this effect.
What should be the responses?
First the principals of Rudisa/CIDI, should walk away from the award. They won a moral victory and Guyana has changed the law.
Second, our Government should now arm itself with the financial penalties to Rudisa/CIDI for the under valuing of invoices and short payment of VAT.
Third should Rudisa/CIDI not walk away from the award, consumers must boycott all Rudisa/CIDI products.
Yours faithfully,
Manzoor Nadir
