Last night, we showed you a few snippets of the lawsuit hearing which Belize has brought against the State of Trinidad and Tobago at the Caribbean Court of Justice.
As we reported, Belize is alleging that Trinidad and Tobago violated the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas by allowing brown sugar to be imported into their borders from non-CARICOM countries without applying the required 40% Common External Tariff.
Belize is also alleging that because of this violation, the two milling companies, Belize Sugar Industries Limited and Santander Sugar, were losing sales in this country.
Yesterday, we showed you how the attorney representing Trinidad and Tobago challenged the evidence produced by Belize's witnesses of these alleged violations. Tonight, we pick up our coverage on the case with an excerpt of the cross-examination of Belize's third witness, Ruy Martinez. He's the Regional Commercial Director for ASR/BSI, and his evidence was important in establishing that Belize's sugar was being locked out of the Trinidad market due to this trade violation. With video provided by the CCJ, here's that conversation from yesterday evening:
Terrence Bharath - Attorney For Trinidad & Tobago
"You are saying — your case is — BSI's case is being advanced through Belize that these various shipments amounting to 3 thousand tonnes of extra-territorial sugar entered Trinidad and Tobago without any CET being charged. I am saying you have absolutely no evidence of that."
Ruy Martinez - Regional Commercial Director, ASR
"Of course, I do. The market is the evidence right there. The price in the market is the evidence right there, the fact that we were not able to sell anything, and we were told that our prices are not acceptable because CET is not being enforced on non-CARICOM origin sugars."
Terrence Bharath
"What entitles you, sir? I'm trying to work this out in my mind and I can't. What entitles your company to a share of the market in Trinidad and Tobago of 3 thousand metric tonnes?"
Ruy Martinez
"It's a projection. You have to put a projection in for your budget. You just can't start a budget from anything. You have to put a projection in your budget, and what you do on your budget, when you projected [is] how are sales coming from previous years? If you look at the numbers, everything was working. The sugar was increasing. The prices were steady, and I think it was about 2,017 or 18 that it started to fall apart. And that was when the projection of 2019 was expected."
Terrence Bharath
"Mr. Martinez, here's the original question I asked you before you went on a rant. You don't have an entitlement to a share of 3,000 tonnes of the local Trinidad market in terms of supply. The word is ‘entitlement'. What you've done is you've made a projection."
Ruy Martinez
"I'm not entitled to anything into Europe, but we have to put a projection on what our sales are — I'm not entitled to sell anything of our molasses, but we have to put projections there. And you project in the markets where you have a favorable commercial atmosphere where you would expect the participants to honor their free trade agreements. That's not what we were finding with the prices that were being circulated in the market. That's not what we were finding with the demand that we were finding in the market. It's not what we were finding with the discussions with the different buyers in the market."
Hon. Denys Barrow - CCJ Judge
"Mr. Martinez, I think you have covered that quite adequately. There's no need to repeat it."
Ruy Martinez
"Thank you, Justice."
We turn now to this morning's cross-examination of Trinidad and Tobago's main witness. She's Trudy Lewis, the Acting Assistant Director of Trade Development & Promotion within that Country's Ministry of Trade & Tourism. Here's how she answered a few of the questions from Belize's attorney, E. Andrew Marshalleck:
E. Andrew Marshalleck - Attorney For Belize
"Has your Ministry conducted any investigations whatsoever into the allegations made by Belize of the importation of brown sugar into 2019 without the payment of CET?"
Trudy Lewis - Ag. Assistant Director, Trade Development & Promotion, Ministry of Trade & Tourism
"The Ministry is not responsible for the implementation of the CET, but we have sought to find out if there was any evidence of it. And what we have been advised [is] that there is no such evidence of the claimant's claim."
E. Andrew Marshalleck
"What efforts were made to find out whether there was evidence in support of the claim. What did you do?"
Trudy Lewis
"My ministry liaised with the agency responsible for administering the CET. So, we liaised with the Customs and Excise Division."
E. Andrew Marshalleck
"Yes, so you asked them if there was any such evidence, and they said no. is that the extent of the investigation?"
Trudy Lewis
"Yes, that's correct."
E. Andrew Marshalleck
"Has your ministry considered the possibility that brown sugar may be imported into Trinidad and false declarations made declaring it to be refined white sugar?"
Trudy Lewis E.
"My ministry considered it, however, we are assured that our agency is implementing the CET and that it would be very difficult for persons to make the claim that the claimant has done."
This evening, the attorneys for the two sides were also given an opportunity to convince the court on how the panel of judges should rule in this matter. Here's are a few of the points that they tried to make on whether or not the claimant's case proven:
E. Andrew Marshalleck - Attorney For Belize
"It is clear that the burden of proof rests upon Belize, and that the claim must be proven to the satisfaction of the Court. The Court has recognized that the breach of treaty obligations can be proven by way of circumstantial evidence. It has held that such evidence is admissible and may be relied upon where 2 conditions are satisfied: 1, the direct evidence is under the exclusive control of the opposing party, and 2, the indirect evidence does not contract any available direct evidence or accepted facts. The claimant has relied on documentary evidence to prove breach of Articles 82 and 83 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. It is conceded that documentary evidence before the court is not of itself probative value to make out the case. We accept that the quality of evidence provided by the documentation before cannot on its own make out the case. Belize sought but failed to secure disclosure of documents in the possession of Trinidad and Tobago, which would have constituted direct evidence of the importations alleged to have been made in breach of the treaty obligations. Belize says the application itself demonstrates that any direct evidence of the importations is indeed under the exclusive control of the first defendant in this case. Belize further says that the inference it asks the court to draw from the circumstantial evidence presented does not contradict any available direct evidence or accepted facts."
Terrence Bharath - Attorney For Trinidad & Tobago
"Mr. Marshalleck said this morning that the Price in respect of sugar changed and went down in 2019. Where is that evidence? Where is that evidence? You have one - if I may - you have different players in the market with respect to sugar, and I'm asking this court to just give me a chance. You have Barbados. You have Jamaica. You have Guyana, and you have Belize. And you have all the other players outside: China, India - name it - that sell sugar. And that's a matter that the court could take judicial notice of. Just because Belize doesn't get the price that it wants in respect of sugar, which it doesn't produce to the court in terms of it's saying that I'm selling at a particular price, and nobody is buying from me. That does not logically mean that some wrongdoing is happening on the other end. You have to have the imports from everybody as regards what price everybody is selling at in the market economy to determine why are they not buying from Belize."
The court has indicated that they will inform the litigants about what the next step in the lawsuit is. There is the possibility that they could return with a judgment on the dispute, or, they may schedule another hearing date.
