Party questions charging fees for grain production and transportation in Maranhão

The Novo Party filed two lawsuits in the Federal Supreme Court (STF) questioning Maranhão rules that established the State Fund for Industrial and Infrastructure Development of the State of Maranhão (FDI), the Grain Transport Inspection Fee (TFTG) and the State Fund for Highways (Fepro).

Direct Unconstitutionality Actions 7406 and 7407 were distributed to minister Gilmar Mendes and minister Cármen Lúcia.

In ADI 7406, the party claims that the FDI was not instituted as a tax, but as a non-compulsory contribution on the value of the ton produced, transported or stored of soybeans, corn and sorghum. However, payment is a condition for enjoying different treatments under the Tax on Circulation of Goods and Services (ICMS).

The FDI was established by State Law 8.246/2005. It lists as the fund's sources of resources "the contribution of 1,8% (one point eight percent) on the value of a ton of soybeans, corn, millet and sorghum produced or transported in the State of Maranhão". Another device also determines contributions on the storage of these products in the state.

The art. 3rd-A of the same law determines that the "non-compulsory" contribution is "linked to the enjoyment of differentiated treatments by taxpayers of [...] ICMS Tax".

Minister Gilmar Mendes has not yet commented.

In ADI 7407, the party argues that the TFTG has a calculation basis identical to that of the ICMS and disregards the immunity of export operations, imposing the payment of the “tax” on them and serving as a source of funding for Fepro.

Both are contained in State Law 11.867/22. In its text, it is seen that “the TFTG taxpayer is the person, natural or legal, who carries out internal, interstate or export-oriented output of soybeans, corn, millet and sorghum grains in the State of Maranhão”. that this "fee" constitutes a source of revenue for Fepro.

Minister Cármen Lúcia determined the application of the rite of art. 10 of Law 9.868/1999, but not § 3 of the same article. In practice, this means that the request for a preliminary decision will be assessed after a statement from the governor, the president of the legislative assembly, the attorney general's office and the union's general counsel. Until then, the billing will continue.