The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is the Caribbean regional judicial court serving the CARICOM countries. The CCJ has two jurisdictions, an original jurisdiction and an appellate jurisdiction. In its original jurisdiction, the CCJ is a court of first instance that applies the rules of international law regarding the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC). In its appellate jurisdiction, the CCJ serves as the final court of appeal in civil and criminal matters for those CARICOM countries that are parties to the Agreement and have acceded to the appellate jurisdiction. The CCJ currently receives cases in its appellate jurisdiction from Barbados, Belize and Guyana. In original jurisdiction, the CCJ can receive cases from the twelve contracting parties to the agreement establishing the Court. The decisions of the CCJ in both its original and appellate jurisdiction are final. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Jamaica, being part of CARICOM and having signed the Revised Treaty of Chaguramas, therefore benefits from the judicial services of the CCJ under original jurisdiction. However, Jamaica has not joined the appellate jurisdiction and, as such, any appeals pursued beyond decisions of the Court of Appeal are presented to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and not to the CCJ. If Jamaica were to join the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ, the following benefits would be achieved: Realization of “real” independence, as the replacement of the Privy Council with the CCJ as the final appellate jurisdiction will complete the cycle of independence of the Commonwealth of Caribbean; reduced legal fees and incidentals such as accommodation and travel such as UK Council employment will no longer be a necessity; the intellectual capacity of the regional council is as competent as the privy council to conduct hearings; ​​greater access to justice as regional matters are handled by regional legal councils thus avoiding custom and ambiguity on the part of the British council; electronic filing which allows efficiency in terms of time and documentation (archiving); Unfortunately, the CCJ: has yet to command great trust and confidence from the public; may not be free from political considerations, pressures and biases As regards the GM's desire to use the CCJ to challenge the environmental tax applied by Guyana on imports of Jamaican snacks in non-returnable containers by CSL, the rulings were issued by the CCJ. This ruling concerned the case of Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV Caribbean International Distributors Inc V. The State of Guyana. Rudisa Beverages is a Suriname-based company that produces beverages packaged in non-returnable containers imported into Guyana and distributed through the CIDI distributor. Under Section 7 of the Guyana Customs Act, an environmental tax is imposed on the importation of non-returnable beverage containers. The legislation does not contain any exemptions in relation to CARICOM goods. This environmental tax imposed on beverages has the effect of increasing the cost price of each imported container by GUY$10. No similar tax is imposed on local producers of disposable beverage containers and, according to the definition of “import duties” in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, the levy must be considered an import duty. The matter was first appealed to the Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) by the Government of Suriname in a series of meetings and it was concluded that the CARICOM Goods Tax is in fact a violation of the RTC. Rudisa and CIDI then appealedto the CCJ arguing that the tax is inconsistent with CARICOM trade policy under Articles 78, 79, 87 and 90 of the RTC which provide for the free movement of goods and the prohibition on the imposition of import duties on CARICOM goods. They sought a declaration that the Guyana Customs Law violates Article 87 or Article 90 of the RTC; an ordinance obliging the State to modify or repeal the legislation to eliminate its discriminatory effect; an ordinance limiting the imposition and collection of tax and damages. Guyana admitted that the tax was inconsistent with its obligations under the RTC, but argued that the government proposed legislation to rectify the discriminatory effect of the environmental tax, but the proposed amendment was rejected by the Assembly national. The Government further argues that the purpose of the legislation is the protection of the environment, which constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution of Guyana. The CCJ ultimately held that the tax was inconsistent with the RTC and ordered Guyana to take necessary action to ensure that it was not applied to CARICOM assets. The CCJ also ordered that Rudisa and CIDI were entitled to a refund of the tax paid by them and collected by Guyana. The CCJ required that if the CIDI failed to notify that Guyana had complied with the ruling made, the State of Guyana would submit to the Court a report on its compliance with such orders. Upon filing of the said report, the parties were granted freedom of appeal in respect of any matter contained in the said report. The CCJ's refund ruling was informed by Société Comateb v Directeur Général de Douanes et Droits Indirects, ruling that where a tax has been wrongly collected in breach of a contractual obligation, it must be refunded unless it can be shown that the tax has been passed on to the consumer or to a third party. There was no evidence to suggest the tax had been passed on. The documentary evidence and testimonies of the appellants demonstrated that the tax was absorbed by the appellants in order to maintain their competitive advantage in the Guyana market. A similar case – SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc V. The Cooperative Republic of Guyana – was brought before the CCJ. SMJ and GBI sought full reimbursement from Guyana for environmental taxes imposed and collected by GBI on imports of non-returnable beverage containers under Guyana's amended Customs Act. It was decided that the collection of environmental tax under Section 7A of the Customs Law in respect of CARICOM goods was inconsistent with Rule 87 of the RTC. Guyana argued that ordering reimbursement to the SMJ and GBI would unjustly enrich them to the extent that they would pass the tax burden on to their customers. Guyana also argued that the appellants were blocked by Laches because they did not contest the collection of the tax within the shortest possible time. Guyana submitted two applications in October 2016 to help it advance defense broadcasting. The first was a request for disclosure and production by the appellants of a large number of documents to demonstrate that they had passed on the tax. The second required Guyana to present expert evidence and submit a report from two named persons to the Court. Having taken into account the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to define unjust enrichment, the CCJ stated that it had a duty to respect the terms of the CARICOM Treaty. Guyana was therefore ordered to pay to the SMJ and the GBI the total amount paid by them in environmental tax for the period in question,