Process: 5005915-52.2018.4.02.5001

6th Federal Civil Court of Vitória/ES

Payroll Exemption


Summary of the demand: Writ of Mandamus filed to question the legality of the revocation, by Law 13.670/2018, of the optional regime of Social Security Contribution on Gross Revenue (CPRB) in the same year of its enactment (2018), obliging companies to pay the CPRB with a rate of 20% on the payroll already in the referred fiscal year.


Grounds: The Writ of Mandamus is based on the fact that Law 13.670/2018 violated the principle of legal certainty, having surprised the taxpayer with a change in the regime, after he had opted, irreversibly, for the taxation regime on gross revenue ( 4.5%), pursuant to the law in force at the time of the option.


Current situation: The preliminary injunction was granted and determined that the tax authorities refrain from demanding the social security contribution of 20% (twenty percent) from the applicant’s substitutes on the payroll, keeping them in the system for calculating the substitute social security contribution on gross revenue (CPRB), by the end of the 2018 calendar year.


The Union filed an Embargoes de Clarification requesting that the decision emphasize that its effectiveness would only benefit those who were already affiliated with CENTROROCHAS. The Embargoes were denied, since, as the associations act as procedural substitutes, there is no need to mention a limitation to the associated members at the time of filing the claim, and the decision may affect all CENTROROCHAS affiliates, regardless of their date of affiliation, within the scope territory of its representation.


On September 27th, a judgment was handed down accepting the arguments of CENTROROCHAS to grant security to members and determine that they remain in the optional regime of Social Security Contribution on Gross Revenue (CPRB) until the end of 2018, if they opted for it.


The Federal Union opposed declaratory embargos alleging that the judgment was silent on some points of the dispute. CENTROROCHAS has already presented counterarguments to the embargoes and the process is with the Judge for a decision.


Process: 5005904-23.2018.4.02.5001

6th Federal Civil Court of Vitória/ES



Summary of the claim: Writ of Mandamus filed against Decree 9393/18, which amended Law 13043/2014 and immediately reduced the rate used to calculate REINTEGRA credits from 2% to 0.1%.


Grounds: The ground for the writ of mandamus is that Decree 9.393/18 disrespected the principle of precedence, as it could only have amended the regime on the first day of the following financial year, that is, January 1, 2019. national courts the understanding that, in the case of a tax benefit, there is no requirement to observe the principle of precedence for changing the rate, reduced the rate used to calculate REINTEGRA credits represented, albeit indirectly, an undeniable increase in the tax burden, fact that justifies the application of the principle.


Current situation: The injunction was rejected, but on April 11, 2019, a judgment was handed down that granted the injunction and declared the right of CENTROROCHAS associates to maintain the percentage of 2% in the calculation of REINTEGRA until the end of the 2018 fiscal year.


The Federal Union appealed the sentence. CENTROROCHAS filed counterarguments to the appeal and the case was sent to the TRF of the 2nd Region (RJ) for judgment. In November, the Federal Public Ministry presented an opinion and now the process awaits judgment.


Process no. 0003597-48.2015.8.08.0035

6th Civil Court of Vila Velha/ES

Container Scan Rate


Summary of the claim: Lawsuit questioning the legality of charging a fee for scanning containers instituted by TVV.


Grounds: It is claimed in the action that the costs for scanning containers required by the Federal Revenue Service should compose the “box rate” (basket of services involved in the basic operation of containers), under the terms of ANTAQ rules, and not be charged separately , since it is not the companies that request the service, and it is provided in all containers without distinction.


Current situation:

The process is in the instruction phase, and CENTROROCHAS protested for the hearing of witnesses, who will be heard at a hearing to be designated.


Notwithstanding the individual agreements that are being signed with TVV, CENTROROCHAS will proceed with the action as it believes in the illegality of the charge. In any case, at the suggestion of CENTROROCHAS, it was included in the text of the individual agreements guaranteeing the associates who sign the agreement the right to stop paying the fee if the action is upheld.


Considering the requests for the issuance of permits for the release of deposits formulated by TVV and by the companies that made the agreement, the Judge ordered the issuance of an official letter to BANESTES so that the bank informs the number of accounts opened and the amount deposited by each company, the in order to enable the issuance of electronic permits. The letter was issued on 03/16/2020.


Process: 0004420-17.2018.8.08.0035

5th Civil Court of Vila Velha/ES

Collection of detention during the strike at TVV


Summary of the claim: Lawsuit holding TVV responsible for paying detention during a strike period at the terminal.


Pleas: It is alleged in the action that TVV is responsible for the damages caused by the collection of detention by the shipowners due to the delay in returning containers, since the delay was caused by the strike of its employees.


Current situation:

The process is in the instruction phase, and CENTROROCHAS protested for the hearing of witnesses, who will be heard at a hearing to be designated.






Through Resolution n. 7,586, of February 27, 2020, ANTAQ declared that the TLE (Export Logistics Fee) does not correspond to a service and, therefore, cannot be charged by shipowners and Port Terminals.


It is not yet known whether, as a result of this decision, the shipowners will stop charging the fee or whether they will file endless administrative and judicial appeals. Thus, CENTROROCHAS, at the last meeting of the Board of Directors, authorized its legal department to study a judicial measure to stop the collection and to recover the fees illegally charged in the last 5 (five) years.


We note that the same resolution declared the legality of charging the TEB (Emergency Bunker Fee), the Bill of Lading Issuance Fee and the Seal Fee.