BELIZE CITY, Tues. Nov. 2, 2021 — Belize’s case against its fellow CARICOM nation, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, which, according to GOB, violated the Treaty of Chaguaramas by importing sugar from countries outside of the Caribbean without imposing the required 40% Common External Tariff (CET), continues to be heard by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Belize is claiming damages, on the basis of its assertion that such a practice has reduced the revenue-earning ability of Belize and other sugar-producing CARICOM countries. Belize’s legal representatives are also asserting that they have evidence to prove that Trinidad and Tobago had been getting sugar from outside the Caribbean during the period 2018-2020.

At the hearing, which began on Monday, Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck and attorney Samantha Matute-Tucker represented Belize, while attorneys Terrence Bharath, Amrita Ramsook, Coreen Findley and Sasha Sukhram represented Trinidad and Tobago.

During cross-examination, Belize introduced Director General of Foreign Trade, Andy Sutherland, as a first witness. The Director was first questioned by Attorney Bharath, who posed a number of questions in an effort to challenge the validity of Belize’s claim. Here is a portion of that exchange:

Director Sutherland: “Justices and Counsel, Belize presented a case based on a legitimate complaint by one of our chief, one of our main sugar-producing companies. They have made the claim that its own sugars are being disadvantaged within the CSME based on actions by other member states. Through the proceedings of this case, we found this to be true in one instance, and that matter has been settled outside of this court. With the current defendant, the task at hand is a bit more complex to deal with, and I think the basis of this case speaks to the need for member states to apply the full rate of 40% CET. The situation surrounding the case did not afford the transparency necessary to determine from all sources if this was the case. There is a dearth of information flow within the community, and as such it was and continues to be a task to pinpoint the exact reasons why sugar, brown sugar, is believed to be imported without paying the CET. My statement to court was to this regard in an atmosphere of lack of transparency, lack of information, ambiguity under which brown sugar is imported into the region. That case became necessary and was lodged. At the bottom of it, the RTC prevails, although we operate in a free-market economy, the rules must be applied. And the rules must be to the benefit of all. I would say at this point that the statement was a testament to the challenges faced by the sugar producers in the region and as such leads us here where we are today.”

Attorney Bharath: “So. Are you telling us, this case which Belize has brought against Trinidad and Tobago is about ascertaining information, Sir? About the importation of brown sugar? You did state to us a while ago when I asked you questions before and even now, you didn’t say positively that there are instances where, as you say, CET is not being charged by virtue of impropriety. That’s your word, not my word. And then you use words to the effect that we need to find out. So, my question to you is you brought Trinidad and Tobago here to answer a case – essentially you used the word ‘impropriety’. I want to find out from you, based on what you’ve just told this court, whether you are still as Belize the government against Trinidad and Tobago trying to find out what happened here. For want of a better word.”

Director Sutherland then referenced a market analysis report provided by the Sugar Association of the Caribbean (SAC) which he asserts is evidence that if the CET was added to the price of brown sugar entering the Caribbean market, the price for that sugar would be in line with SAC’s market analysis. To this, attorney Bharath replied, “I’m asking you head on: are you accusing the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, is the state of Belize accusing the Government of Trinidad and Tobago of impropriety, not collecting CET in the case of brown sugar, yes, or no?”

Director Sutherland replied, “Counsel, the act of impropriety in relation to importation does not have to necessarily fall on the government. The impropriety happened within the players associated with the process itself. I would assume that these actions would be. I will leave it at that, Counsel. Impropriety does not have to be the act of the government; it would be that act of the improprieties. Nonetheless, it does give arise to situations where CET may not be paid.”
The exchange continued as follows:
Attorney Bharath: “Sir, I’m going to ask you this frontly again. Are you accusing anybody of impropriety in respect of CET and, if so, where can I find that in your witness statement? Impropriety. In other words, flagrant breach of the customs laws of Trinidad and Tobago. I want to see it in your witness statement. Anybody.”
Director Sutherland: “Counsel, I cannot admit to that.”

Attorney Bharath: “Thank you very much. There’ll be no further questions to this witness.”
The Vice President of International Relations at ASR, Mac McLachlan, was also called as a witness, and the exchange between him and Bharath was similarly animated. Here is an excerpt from that exchange:

Mr. McLachlan: “The global price for sugar is obviously an internationally traded price. So, it’s an international market for sugar. Around about 80% of sugar produced is consumed within the country, where it’s produced or the region it’s produced. Only about 20% of sugar makes it into the global market. Generally, in fact virtually always, with some very few exceptions, regions and countries protect their domestic sugar supply where it’s made. And that means prices that can be attained in those countries and regions are much, much higher than they might be in the global sugar market. And the exposure of most of those countries is only for a very small amount of sugar that then go into the market. And the problem that we’ve been confronted with in CARICOM because 200,000 tons of three hundred and fifty odd tons that are consumed are imported from extra-regional sources. Either as brown sugar or as white sugar. Our exposure to the global market is extremely high within CARICOM. And that’s the same for ourselves, Guyana, and others. So, what I’m trying to say is that, in general, the domestic regional markets for sugar duties are protected. And that means that sugar is sold onto the global market at sometimes much lower prices than even the production cost of sugar. But the reason that price tends in those trends is usually to do with supply. So, if there’s too much global supply, the price will go down. And it’s a cyclic industry; the price will tend to go up and down. So, when businesses go out, when somebody’s had a drought in Brazil or India or somewhere like that, supply doesn’t meet demand, that’s when prices go up again on the global market.”

Attorney Bharath: “Could I ask you something? The CARICOM Market is a free trade market as far as you understand it. In other words, a member of CARICOM can either choose to buy from a CARICOM member or outside of the CARICOM region, isn’t that so?”

Mr. McLachlan: “If we are talking about brown sugar, it would make no sense, because it would be impossible for an extra regional supplier of brown sugar to compete with regionally supplied sugar if the CET is being paid. It would make no sense.”

Attorney Bharath: “Hold on, hold on, hold on. Are you telling me, for example, Honduras and Guatemala and even Colombia or somewhere else are bound to supply Trinidad and Tobago or any other CARICOM country, with sugar at a particular price as traded on the world market?”

Mr. McLachlan: “No, they will supply sugar that makes sense to them. I mean, they will look for the better price they can get.”

Attorney Bharath: “So let me ask you this question. Logically from that, if for example, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia or any other country for that matter of fact chooses to supply Trinidad and Tobago with sugar, even when the forty percent is added, is less than the price that BSI sells it for, are you saying—”

Mr. McLachlan: “It can’t be. I am sorry. It can’t be.”

Attorney Bharath: “Sir could you just – Why do you say it can’t be?”

Mr. McLachlan: “We will always compete. It will be economically illiterate for us to sell sugar at a higher price than the CET value for sugar, and we are not economically illiterate. We understand what the CET price should be. We understand that we are competing with other Caribbean producers. That should give us an equilibrium of price somewhere where we’re competing with each other that falls well below any sugar that is coming from extra regional sources that has paid the CET.”

At the end of the hearing, the President of the CCJ, Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders, gave final resolutions and stated that both parties would be notified of the Court’s decision in due course:

“I need to just thank you both. Thank your assistance. The bench will naturally take time to consider, and we will let you know in due course what our next hearing on this would be or whether we have a judgement for you as the case may be,” stated Saunders.