Skip to main content

Reply to "Guyana has until January 2016 to pay US$6M to Rudisa"

Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr Basil Williams adding his piece to the debate on the Customs [Amendment) Bill yesterday in the National Assembly (Photo by Adrian Narine)

Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr Basil Williams adding his piece to the debate on the Customs (Amendment) Bill yesterday in the National Assembly (Photo by Adrian Narine)

Gov’t amends Customs Act –Guyana could lose out on close to $1B

 

AFTER agreeing to a payment of some US$6.2M to the Surinamese company, Rudisa Beverages, over a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling against Guyana’s “discriminatory” environmental tax, the National Assembly yesterday passed the Customs (Amendment) Bill, which could leave a significant dent on the country’s finances. The section of the Act which was under appeal gave the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) the power to collect an environmental tax on every unit of non-returnable containers of imported beverages. The Bill was presented by Finance Minister, Mr Winston Jordan, but it was Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr Basil Williams who has been representing the Guyana Government in the matter, which is set for final hearing today at the CCJ in Trinidad and Tobago. Williams said the government will be paying the US$6.2M agreed reduction from the settlement with the Surinamese company. That money is expected to be paid by January 31 of next year. In another measure, as required by the CCJ, Guyana will, as of today (July 31, 2015) cease collecting the environmental tax. Guyana’s Finance Minister is convinced, however, that Guyana might have had a stronger case at the level of the CCJ than it is being given credit for. Jordan cited the constitutional obligation of the State to protect Guyana’s environment for use by future generations. To this end, Jordan sought to defend the environmental tax in the National Assembly, saying that the Surinamese company should not have been awarded damages, since the losses claimed by the company would have already been recovered from the sale of their products in Guyana. “It was submitted that the claimants (Rudisa) had already recovered their loss by the general commercial practice of adding on the cost incurred as a result of the environmental levy to the selling price,” Minister Jordan said, citing the argument put forward by Guyana to the CCJ. Guyana has presented no evidence to show that Rudisa had, in fact, passed on the tax to consumers buying their products. Similarly, Jordan noted the negative impact that the non-collection of the tax would have on Guyana’s treasury, since it has contributed some $1B thus far. In further defense of the tax, Jordan cited the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), which describes environmental taxes as economic instruments to address environmental problems, and a means of providing economic incentives for people and businesses to promote ecologically-sustainable activities. Foreign Minister, Mr Carl Greenidge took to the floor to decry that when the former PPP/C government imposed the environmental tax, “it was not unaware that it infringed the Treaty.” He rejected the notion of the PPP/C to lay blame to his party for the judgement, which could see Guyana having to pay more than US$1B in compensation. The PPP/C had sought to amend the act, and that was prevented by the then APNU and AFC opposition parties in the 10th Parliament in 2014. Speaking against statements of this nature from the PPP/C, Greenidge said the PPP/C’s amendment was not to a reduction of the tax but revising its application. Attorney-General Williams will join counsel for the Rudisa Beverage Company and the panel of judges at the CCJ to finalise the settlement between the Government and the Surinamese Company via video conference at the Court of Appeal, here in Kingston. (Derwayne Wills)

FM
×
×
×
×
×
×