Grain export tax struck down in Maranhão

The legislation is rooted in a detail sneaked in the tax reform (Constitutional Amendment No. 132, 2023) just before the final vote. The levy is set at 1.8% per tonne on all soybeans, corn, millet, and sorghum entering and circulating within the state. This is the first favorable ruling for companies that has come to light.

At least eight lawsuits are already underway, including class-action ones, but none have been ruled on, or the judgments so far have been unfavorable. In the case brought by ALZ Grãos S.A., the injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed on procedural grounds (case no. 0812391-24.2025.8.10.0001).

The CEG began being collected at the start of this year. It has increased costs and created logistical hurdles for agribusiness companies, which operate on tight margins. According to the Maranhão State Soybean and Corn Producers Association (Aprosoja-MA), the levy could cause losses of 12% to 15% for producers and an annual cost of R$269 million. Some taxpayers need to spend up to R$1 million per month. In Terrus’s case, the loss was about R$300,000.

The main issue, according to tax experts, is that the levy is imposed even on taxpayers not domiciled in Maranhão, as it is charged upon trucks entering the state. Lawyers argue that the law contradicts the Federal Constitution’s tax immunity granted to exported products.

The tax was established based on Article 136 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT), created by the reform. It allows states to impose taxes on primary or semi-finished products. However, there is a requirement: there must have already been a similar contribution aimed at funds for investments in infrastructure and housing prior to April 30, 2023.

For the judge in the case, Teresa Cristina De Carvalho Pereira Mendes of the 1st Public Finance Court of São Luís, there are “serious indications of formal and material unconstitutionality” in the Maranhão law. She said it’s inadmissible to create a tax with a broader base or rate than the previous contribution.

The judge also ruled that the state cannot create a tax that applies to exports, “in direct conflict with the principle of tax immunity,” and that the provision “does not comply with the temporal and structural requirements set by the constitutional norm that would support it” (case no. 0823631-10.2025.8.10.0001).

“The urgency is evident, as with every new entry of trucks into the state of Maranhão, the collection of the CEG is required, under penalty of vehicle impoundment, causing significant operational, logistical, and economic losses,” she said. A fine of R$1,000 applies for each day of non-compliance with the injunction.

In the lawsuit, Terrus argues that Maranhão did not have a fund regularly funded by an equivalent contribution, thus not meeting the requirements of Article 136 of the ADCT outlined in the tax reform.

It also claims that the CEG is a “disguised” replacement of the now-defunct Grain Transport Inspection Charge (TFTG), whose validity is being challenged in the Federal Supreme Court (STF) with a favorable opinion for taxpayers from the Attorney General’s Office (ADI 7407).

Another argument is that the new contribution violates equality, as it only affects the agribusiness sector. A similar tariff was introduced by Tocantins state before Constitutional Amendment No. 132/2023, but it was declared unconstitutional by the STF in March of last year (ADI 6365).

The State of Maranhão, in its defense, argues that the measure is based on Article 136 of the ADCT and that the revenue collected will go to the Maranhão Industrial Development Fund for investments and maintenance of the state road infrastructure. In other words, the agribusiness sector itself would benefit from the measure. The government did not respond to requests for comment by the edition’s deadline.

Tax expert Guilherme Guimarães Oliveira, a partner at Abreu, Oliveira e Naue (AON) Advogados and representing Terrus, argues that the new levy is similar to the TFTG created in 2022, which applied to the same grains but was limited to transport and aimed at a fund for road investments. “The law was established without the state’s authority to do so,” he said.

The levy on cargo entering the state has harmed companies not from the region that need to use the Maranhão Grain Terminal (Tegram), one of the main outlets for the export market. “They are being forced to pay the contribution simply for using this route, and the fiscal posts have been stopping truck after truck, demanding the CEG as a condition to continue the journey,” he stated.

The concern is that the levy might be replicated by other states. Pará implemented a similar tax after the tax reform but later revoked it. According to tax expert Fabio Calcini, a partner at Brasil Salomão e Matthes Advocacia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás, and Tocantins previously created optional contributions and could benefit from the provision in Article 136 of EC No. 132. “Maranhão pioneered this by creating the CEG, but it does not meet the conditions and requirements of the article,” he said.

Mr. Calcini, who represents the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) in another case, claims there are “numerous flaws” in the Maranhão law. “The previous charge was a fee, not a contribution, and was not intended to allocate funds for housing, which is a constitutional requirement,” he said.