BELIZE CITY, Tues. Feb. 1, 2022– Today, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) delivered its ruling on the case brought by Belize against Trinidad and Tobago over that country’s alleged importation of brown sugar from Guatemala and Honduras between November 2018 and June 2020 without the imposition of a 40% Common External Tariff (CET) that the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) requires members of the Caribbean Single Market Economy (CSME) to impose on goods bought from countries which are not part of that arrangement. Initially, Belize was seeking damages, based on the local sugar industry’s loss of opportunities to generate revenue through the sale of sugar, as a result of Trinidad and Tobago’s decision, but at the trial hearing, the country’s legal representative, E. Andrew Marshalleck SC, indicated Belize’s willingness to accept a mere judicial statement on the importance of implementing the CET on extra-regional brown sugar.
In the CCJ ruling, it was noted that “At the hearing, Belize indicated its willingness to accept in substitution of the relief claimed appropriately worded judicial statements of the importance of implementation and maintaining of the CET on extra-regional brown sugar.”
Such a statement was indeed provided by the court. The president of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, stated the following in the court’s judgment: “The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining the CET, especially in respect to the importation of an extra-regional production such as brown sugar which is of demonstrable importance to a member state such as Belize that manufactures it. The court found that the CET does not guarantee regional brown sugar producers an assured market but that those producers are entitled to the production of the market that the CET is intended to provide”.
Belize had claimed that Trinidad and Tobago’s importation of sugar from our Latin American neighbors resulted in a decline in the prices, and sales, of brown sugar produced by Belize Sugar Industry Limited (BSI). The case was brought by Belize on behalf of BSI, which was the first entity to claim damages. They claimed that from November 2018 to June 2020, extra-regional brown sugar was imported to T&T without the CET being imposed. In the court’s ruling, however, it noted that Belize failed to provide the court with sufficient evidence of its claims.
“The court found that there were severe shortcomings in the evidence offered by Belize in respect of the alleged failure of Trinidad and Tobago to apply the CET and that these failures were not cured by reference to circumstantial evidence,” Justice Saunders stated.
In its defense, Trinidad and Tobago had denied that it permitted the importation of brown sugar in a manner inconsistent with the RTC, specifically denying that they imported extra-regional sugar without imposing the 40% CET.
Trinidad and Tobago also claimed that the country could not bring a claim on behalf of BSI, since that company is not a state-owned entity in Belize, and that Belize could not present a claim for the benefit of BSI nor claim damages on behalf of BSI.
In the CCJ ruling, however, Saunders stated, “The court commented on the fact Belize presenting this claim for its benefit and for the benefit of BSI, the court found that there was no doubt that under the RTC Belize was entitled to espouse its claim on behalf of BSI.”
According to counsel representing Belize, E. Andrew Marshalleck S.C, the case puts positive pressure on countries which are members of the CSME to meet the treaty obligations, which would ensure that BSI does not face any unfair competition in the export of its product to the CSME countries. He said that Belize would have five years to appeal the ruling in the event that new evidence emerges which shows that the relief originally sought should be granted.
Each country was ordered to bear its own costs.