The Caribbean Court of Justice has handed down its decision in two very important cases involving the Government of Belize.
Tonight we start first with our coverage of the lawsuit that the State of Belize brought against its CARICOM counterpart, Trinidad and Tobago.
Using the court's original jurisdiction, the Belize Government alleged that Authorities in T&T failed to comply with their obligations under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. Under that treaty, CARICOM States are required to charge a 40% Common External Tariff (CET) on brown sugar imported from outside the Caribbean sugar. The Belize Government presented a case and attempted to convince the panel of presiding CCJ judges that between November 2018 and June 2020, the Trinidadian Government failed to charge the CET on extra-regional brown sugar imported into their borders. Trinidad basically denied the allegation and insisted that Belize, its accuser, failed to prove that they violated this treaty obligation.
Well, after several months of deliberation, the court returned today to hand down its decision.
Here's an excerpt of the ruling's summary which was read by the CCJ President during a virtual court hearing at noon:
Justice Adrian Saunders - CCJ President
"Belize alleged that between November 2018 and June 2020, brown sugar from Guatemala and Honduras entered the State of Trinidad and Tobago without payment of the 40% Common External Tariff, or CET, resulting in reduced prices and sales of BSI-produced brown sugar. Belize further alleged that Trinidad and Tobago had breached the obligation imposed by article 82 of the RTC to apply and maintain a CET rate of 30% on extra-regional imports of brown sugar entering the CSME to strengthen the regional sugar industry and create an assured market. Belize was therefore of the view that a dispute existed between itself and Trinidad and Tobago under Articles 9, 15, 79, 82, and 83 of the RTC. The court found that in international law litigation, the state alleging a breach of treaty obligations by another state bears the burden of proving that allegation. 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. In this judgment, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining the CET, especially in respect of the importation of an extra-regional product, 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 protection of the market that the CET is intended to provide."
As you heard, the court was not convinced by Belize's case that Trinidad and Tobago violated the treaty. But, they have reiterated that this Common External Tariff, which was the heart of this dispute, must be treated with the appropriate level of importance. aSR/BSI insisted that because of this alleged violation, they were having a hard time penetrating the Trinidadian sugar market because their selling price was too high when compared to sugars coming in from outside CARICOM.
