Suriname’s Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling establishing that the state cannot be compelled to continue issuing fraudulent or misleading timber export certifications, even when such practices were historically tolerated. The court’s decisive judgment on Tuesday overturned a previous lower court order that had mandated the government to provide phytosanitary certificates under the designation “Mora round logs” for export to India, under penalty of a SRD 1 million per hour fine.
The Court’s central determination establishes that practices which:
● Violate national regulations,
● Breach international treaties,
● And deliberately contain false information
cannot form the foundation for legal certainty or legitimate expectation.
The judicial panel found that timber exporters knew—or reasonably should have known—that not all exported wood species were permitted for import into India, and that the “Mora” designation was specifically used to circumvent these import restrictions. In such circumstances, the Court ruled that exporters cannot claim protection under administrative law, noting both the absence of a valid application and any legal basis for their claims.
Court spokesperson Ingrid Lachitjaran clarified that since no formal application had been submitted for phytosanitary certificates for India-bound Mora wood, there could consequently be no refusal by the state. The shipment in question had originally been destined for China, with requests made to the Ministry of Agriculture for fumigation accordingly, but was redirected to India without proper destination change procedures.
The Court further determined that no consistent practice existed upon which exporters could legitimately rely. Investigation revealed that export documents systematically misrepresented wood species to facilitate clearance in India—a practice the Court emphatically stated cannot create legal certainty or justified trust, especially when conducted in violation of both national regulations and international treaties requiring truthful certification.
The ruling noted that only four Surinamese wood species are permitted for import into India, while other prohibited species were exported under the collective “Mora” designation. “Those who know a practice is incorrect cannot derive justified trust from it,” Lachitjaran explained in summarizing the Court’s position.
The judicial decision also considered that the state had announced measures against incorrect certification as early as 2022, providing a six-month transition period, with all timber exporters again formally notified in October 2025 that existing rules would be strictly enforced. The Court found the state cannot be blamed for exporters continuing to submit false information despite these warnings.
Six timber exporting companies—Pinnacle Timber Products N.V., Green Wood World N.V., Harmony Timber N.V., Wintrip International N.V., Bakhuis Forest N.V., and Atlantic Asia Resources N.V.—were ordered to pay court costs totaling SRD 17,500. The case was heard by a panel chaired by Acting President Siegline Wijnhard, with members Alida Johanns and Jane Jansen.
This ruling establishes a clear legal boundary: prolonged practice cannot create rights when that practice violates laws and regulations. Phytosanitary certificates may only be issued based on accurate and complete information, regardless of economic interests or previous customary practices.