Belize City, Mon. Nov. 8, 2021 — The hearing of a case brought by the Government of Belize against the government of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean Court of Justice for that Caribbean nation’s violation of the Treaty of Chaguaramas was wrapped up last week, and it appears that Belize, which had initially been making claims for damages (on the basis of lost revenue due to Trinidad’s alleged importation of brown sugar from countries outside CARICOM without imposing the 40% Common External Tariff (CET) required by the Chaguaramas treaty) has opted to abandon those claims.

There were indications of this shift in the country’s position in the remarks made by attorney Andrew Marshalleck, who represented Belize at the CCJ, in the latter part of the hearing. During those final rounds of cross-examination, when Marshalleck was asked what suggestion he could make as to the amount of brown sugar that was brought into Trinidad and Tobago without the requisite CET being imposed, these were his remarks:

“This is where we go to the relief. And I want to make clear that of course all the reliefs that were in the originating claim – a number of them have fallen away and I want to take your honors through them. I think all we are left with really are the declarations sought at A and D. And while I have no instructions to withdraw the claim for damages, I will make no submissions in support of them. I don’t think they can be successfully advanced. So, from a practical perspective, with damages off the table we’re looking at two declarations only. The declaration at A does not have any reference to amount. And the declaration of D does. But we do ask that the reference in the declaration claim to quote approximately 3,000 metric tons be struck so that it doesn’t matter at the end of the day how much was imported. And in relation to the first declaration there is of course no longer any claim against the second defendant. So that the reference to the second defendant in there should also be struck.”

Following those remarks and after a few more hours of cross-examination, Hon. Justice Winston Anderson went on to say that Attorney Marshalleck had failed to identify a “smoking gun” to support his claims. Here is an excerpt from that exchange:

Hon. Justice Anderson: “Mr. Marshalleck, I can’t help but remark that you are presiding over a case which is rapidly dwindling before our eyes, and it started out in quite some expanse, and it has come down now to what I gather you’re asking for right now is a simple declaration. So, I want to ask you about the declaration. I also want to ask you a question about another claim you have abandoned, damages. But in relation to declaration first of all, if all that you are now asking for is a declaration that the defendant failed to impose the CET, would that objective not also be satisfied in appropriately worded statements by this court? Do we need to go to the extent of making a finding that there was in fact failure to observe the obligation under the CET? Or if it were to word the obligations under in such strong language as would be appropriate, would that not satisfy you?”

Attorney Marshalleck: “It could. It could. At the end of the day, we want to see the market function as it was intended to. And if that is achieved by that type of guidance being given in clear enough and strong enough terms, then that’s fine.”

It is to be noted that the Sugar Association of the Caribbean (SAC) has commended Belize for its legal action against Trinidad and Tobago for its alleged non-compliance with the CET requirement in the regional market. On Monday, November 8, the association issued a press release in which it stated, “lawyers representing the Government of Belize provided evidence of more than 4000 metric tons of sugar imported without any record of CET being paid.” The release also included comments by the chairman of the association, R. Carl James, on Belize’s decision to forego compensation. He remarked, “This case was not primarily about compensation. It is about ensuring that protection set out in the Treaty, and reinforced by numerous decisions of COTED, are abided by. Otherwise, the CSME would have very little relative value for any of its members.”