Judge allows rural association producers to ignore freight table

nila44

Judge Marcelo Guerra Martins, from the 11th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, suspending the application of the minimum freight table established by the federal government to members of the Brazilian Agribusiness Association. With this Thursday's injunction (14/6), members of the category — soybean and coffee producers, for example — can negotiate prices directly with transporters.


Abag filed a lawsuit against the Union and the National Land Transport Agency to obtain suspension of the effects of Provisional Measure 832/2018 , which determined the minimum freight prices for road transport in Brazil — bargaining chip to end the truck driver strike .

According to the agribusiness B2B Lead entity, the measure is illegal because it offends the principles of the economic order provided for in the Constitution, as well as free enterprise and free competition. The author also stated that the MP also violates the principles of proportionality, purpose and efficiency as it increases the value of transport and, consequently, impacts the final prices of products, putting at risk the decrease in agricultural and industrial production in the country.

Judge Marcelo Martins concluded that the table is a “drastic measure”, as it “completely removes the parties’ negotiating freedom”. He also assessed that this type of state intervention in the economy is “harmless and causes uncertainty, insecurity and shortages of products, to the clear detriment of consumers”.

According to the decision, the measure adopted by the government during the truck drivers' strike would only be acceptable in very exceptional cases. “It turns out that, at least under this inaugural and prefacial cognition, I do not see the clear presence of any of the marketing failures mentioned”, stated the judge.

Against the Constitution
, Martins declared that the table “conflicts with the provisions of art. 3rd, II, of the Federal Constitution of 1988, as it is a measure that, as stated, does not favor economic growth and, therefore, is contrary to the country's own development”.



“In the same vein, the intervention is excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate, therefore not in line with the principles of free enterprise and free competition, both covered by art. 170 of the Constitution”, he concluded when granting the injunction request.