Guyana breached CET, to pay costs

Apr 01, 2010 News

Vindicated!- Attorney General Charles Ramson says that he is vindicated that contempt charges brought against him by TCL have been dismissed by the Caribbean Court of Justice.

…but CCJ dismisses contempt case against Attorney General

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has thrown out contempt claims against Attorney General, Charles Ramson, but found that Guyana breached a court order made last year to reinstate a regional tax on cement.
The decision by the CCJ was handed down Monday after the contempt action was filed by Trinidad Cement Limited (TCL) against the State of Guyana.
In a press conference yesterday, Minister of Legal Affairs, Attorney General Charles Ramson, said that he was vindicated by the decision of the CCJ as Guyana was clearly being made a scapegoat by the cement company.
CCJ also ordered that Guyana pay half of the taxed costs of the application to TCL.
The CCJ sitting comprised of Judges Michael de la Bastide, Rolston Nelson, Adrian Saunders, Jacob Wit and David Hayton.
TCL filed the contempt action on October 6, 2009 with Guyana filing its responses on October 27, 2009. The hearing was held on the January 26, 2010
Representing Guyana on the case was Kamal Ramkarran, Attorney-at-law.
TCL claimed that it went to CCJ after Guyana failed to comply with the Court’s Order of August 20, 2009 within 28 days “implement and thereafter maintain the CET (Common external Tariff) in respect of cement from non-CARICOM sources.”
TCL sought an order compelling the Attorney-General of Guyana to attend court and show cause why he should not be held to be in contempt of court for failing to implement and give effect to the Order.
TCL also asked for a declaration that such failure constituted a contempt of court. The applicants also amended their application with leave of the Court so as to include a declaration that Guyana was in breach of Article 215 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (“the Revised Treaty”).
At the hearing of the contempt application, the applicants orally notified the Court that they were inviting the Court to find that Guyana was in contempt by virtue of its disobedience of the Order and to make an award of costs on an indemnity basis but otherwise they were not seeking any punitive sanctions.According to the Minister, Guyana had unilaterally taken the decision to remove the CET after TCL, which also operates in Guyana, was unable to bring down prices of cement which was “stagnating” the economy.
TCL had taken Guyana to the CCJ and where it was ordered in August to reinstate the tax.
It was only in January that Guyana reinstated the tax.
The decision to remove the CET was done for the benefit of the country and had seen prices immediately dropping from the high $2,000 per bag to now hovering a little over a $1,000.
The end justified the means, Ramson said.
Of significance to the entire situation of the TCL’s court case is that an initial claim for US$3M for losses due to the removal of CET was not entertained by the regional court when the initial court case was heard.
Guyana had conceded that it breached the trade treaty on the CET.
“…We conceded…they succeeded… that we were in breach.”
It was clear that the contempt action was designed to make it a political case against Guyana and to make the Attorney General a “scapegoat”, the Minister said.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News