Mexico — Customs Valuation

Mexico's customs valuation regime rests on two legal pillars: the multilateral World Trade Organization Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the WTO Valuation Agreement) and domestic implementation through Articles 64 through 78 of the Ley Aduanera (Customs Law). Mexico acceded to the WTO in 1995, and the 1995 Customs Law reform incorporated the WTO Valuation Agreement's six sequential methods into federal law, replacing the prior arbitrary-value framework.

Governing statute and administering authority

The Ley Aduanera, most recently amended on November 19, 2025, provides at Article 1 that it regulates "the entry into national territory and exit therefrom of goods and the means in which they are transported or conducted, customs clearance and acts that derive from such entry or exit of goods." Article 64 establishes the transaction-value method as the primary valuation basis; Articles 65 and 66 define the increments (adds) and exclusions from transaction value; Articles 67 through 78 govern the alternative methods when transaction value is unavailable; and Article 78-A permits the customs authority to reject declared value and apply the statutory methods when false documentation is used, the importer fails to provide supporting elements, or the importer obstructs the exercise of audit powers.

The Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT), the federal tax-administration service within the Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público (Ministry of Finance), issues implementing regulations (Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera) and annual general rules (Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior, or RGCE). Day-to-day customs operations are conducted by the Agencia Nacional de Aduanas de México (ANAM), a deconcentrated agency with technical, operational, and administrative autonomy that exercises customs and fiscal authority at Mexico's land, air, and maritime ports of entry.

WTO Valuation Agreement — positive concept of value and the six sequential methods

The WTO Valuation Agreement recognizes that customs valuation should, "as far as possible, be based on the actual price of the goods to be valued" — the so-called positive concept of value — and prohibits the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. Article 1 of the WTO Valuation Agreement establishes transaction value (the price actually paid or payable for imported goods when sold for export to the country of importation, adjusted as prescribed) as the primary method. The six methods must be applied in strict hierarchical order:

1. Transaction value of the imported goods (Article 1)
2. Transaction value of identical goods (Article 2)
3. Transaction value of similar goods (Article 3)
4. Deductive value (Article 5)
5. Computed value (Article 6)
6. Fall-back method (Article 7 — reasonable means consistent with the Agreement's principles)

Under Article 4 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, an importer may request that Methods 4 and 5 (deductive and computed value) be reversed in order.

Scope of application — all imports subject to duty

Mexico applies the WTO Valuation Agreement and Ley Aduanera valuation rules to all goods imported into Mexican customs territory that are subject to ad valorem or mixed (ad valorem plus specific) duties. Goods qualifying for preferential treatment under the USMCA (T-MEC), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), or one of Mexico's other free-trade agreements are still valued under the WTO framework; preferential origin affects the duty rate, not the valuation methodology.

The declared customs value forms the tax base for the Impuesto General de Importación (general import tax, the tariff itself), the value-added tax (IVA) on imports, and — where applicable — the special tax on production and services (IEPS) on imports of alcohol, tobacco, fossil fuels, and sweetened beverages.

Related-party transactions and the Article 1.2 / Ley Aduanera Article 67 tests

Article 1.2 of the WTO Valuation Agreement — codified in Mexico at Ley Aduanera Article 67 — permits the use of transaction value between related parties only if the relationship did not influence the price or, if it did, the importer demonstrates through a test-value comparison that the declared transaction value "closely approximates" one of three benchmarks: (a) the transaction value of identical or similar goods sold to unrelated buyers in Mexico at or about the same time, (b) the deductive value of identical or similar goods, or (c) the computed value of identical or similar goods. In practice, SAT frequently challenges related-party pricing when the declared value is materially below the transaction value for comparable unrelated-party imports of the same merchandise.

Documentation — manifestación de valor

Importers must electronically transmit a manifestación de valor (value declaration) through the SAT's electronic customs system before or at the time of filing the import pedimento (customs declaration). The manifestación details the price paid or payable, itemizes Article 65 increments (commissions, assists, royalties, packing, proceeds of subsequent resale) and Article 66 exclusions (post-importation costs for construction, assembly, or maintenance; interest charges under a financing arrangement; buying commissions; import duties and taxes paid in Mexico; certain transport and insurance costs if separately identified), and — when the importer and seller are related — attests to the independence of price from the relationship or provides the Article 67 test-value data. Rule 1.9.16 and Rule 1.9.17 of the RGCE for 2026 prescribe the electronic format and the assignment of an acuse de valor (value acknowledgment number) that must be declared in Box 43 of the pedimento.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Cámara de Diputados (latest reform November 19, 2025) Source: WTO Valuation Agreement (Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994) Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, SAT

When transaction value under Ley Aduanera Article 64 serves as the primary valuation method, the "price paid or payable" is rarely the complete customs value. Article 65 requires that the importer add five categories of charges to the base price when those charges (a) run to the account of the importer and (b) are not already included in the price paid. These mandatory additions — known in Mexican customs practice as gastos incrementables (a term of trade, not the statutory heading) — are set out in Fractions I through IV of Article 65, and their proper identification and quantification determine whether the declared value survives SAT scrutiny or triggers a value-adjustment determination under Article 78-A.

Article 65 opens with a foundational discipline: "For the determination of the transaction value of the goods, the price paid shall be incremented exclusively in conformity with the provisions of this article, on the basis of objective and quantifiable data." The importer may not add arbitrary estimates; every increment must rest on documented, objectively verifiable amounts.

Fraction I: Four baseline charges incurred to deliver the goods to the port of entry

Article 65, Fraction I enumerates four elements that must be added to the price paid when they run to the importer's account and are not included in that price:

• Commissions and brokerage charges, except buying commissions (Article 65(I)(a)). Selling commissions paid by the importer to the seller's agent are incremental; buying commissions (amounts the importer pays to its own purchasing agent to secure the goods on its behalf) are excluded under Article 66(I) because they benefit the importer, not the seller.

• Cost of containers or packaging that, for customs purposes, are considered to form a whole with the goods (Article 65(I)(b)).

• Packing costs, both labor and materials (Article 65(I)(c)).

• Transport, insurance, and related charges — handling, loading, and unloading — incurred up to the point at which the circumstances described in Article 56(I) occur (Article 65(I)(d)). Article 56(I) refers to the moment the goods arrive at the Mexican port or land border crossing and are available for customs clearance. In practice, this means that international freight, marine or air cargo insurance, and terminal-handling charges up to the Mexican frontier are incremental; post-entry inland transport within Mexico is not (Article 66(II)(b)).

The split at the frontier tracks the WTO Valuation Agreement's principle that customs value should reflect the transaction price delivered to the country of importation, not beyond.

Fraction II: Assists — goods and services supplied by the importer for production of the imported merchandise

Article 65, Fraction II mandates inclusion of the "duly apportioned" value of goods and services that the importer supplied, directly or indirectly, free of charge or at reduced prices, for use in the production and sale for export of the imported goods, provided that value is not already in the price paid. The four subcategories are:

• Materials, parts, elements, components, and analogous articles incorporated into the imported goods (Article 65(II)(a)). Example: a U.S. automotive-parts importer ships dies and stampings to a Mexican contract manufacturer; the finished assemblies are then imported back into Mexico for onward export to the United States under USMCA. When those assemblies enter Mexico, the value of the U.S.-origin components that the importer provided must be added to the invoice price.

• Tools, matrices, molds, and analogous elements used in the production of the imported goods (Article 65(II)(b)). The value is apportioned across the quantity of goods the tooling is expected to produce.

• Materials consumed in the production of the imported goods (Article 65(II)(c)) — consumables such as lubricants, abrasives, or catalysts.

• Engineering work, development and improvement work, artistic work, designs, plans, and sketches carried out outside Mexican territory that are necessary for the production of the imported goods (Article 65(II)(d)). If the work was performed in Mexico, no adjustment is made (see Articles 72 and 73, which exclude domestic assists when comparing values of identical or similar goods). Typical examples include design files transmitted by a U.S. brand owner to a Chinese contract manufacturer or architectural drawings for prefabricated building modules.

Fraction II is the codification of the WTO Valuation Agreement Article 8.1(b) "assists" concept. The importer's documentation burden is high: it must produce contracts, invoices, and allocation schedules that establish the nature of the supplied input, its cost (or the reduction in price relative to fair-market value if supplied at reduced cost), and the methodology for apportioning that cost across the units imported.

Fraction III: Royalties and license fees

Article 65, Fraction III requires the addition of "royalties and license fees related to the goods being valued that the importer must pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of those goods, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price paid."

The two-part test tracks WTO Valuation Agreement Article 8.1(c):

1. The royalty or license fee must be related to the imported goods — a trademark royalty on the brand affixed to finished apparel is related; a corporate trademark license unrelated to the specific merchandise is not.

1. The payment must be a condition of sale — the seller will not complete the transaction unless the royalty is paid. If the license agreement is between the importer and a third party unrelated to the seller, the payment is ordinarily not a condition of sale of the goods themselves (though SAT may examine the contractual chain if the licensor and seller are related parties).

Royalty adjustments are the most frequent subject of post-entry SAT audits. Importers commonly underreport or entirely omit royalties because the payment flows outside the purchase-order and commercial-invoice cycle. Article 81(VII) of the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera (the Customs Law Regulation) requires the importer to attach "contracts related to the transaction of the goods subject to the operation" as supporting documents to the manifestación de valor, and SAT auditors cross-reference intellectual-property agreements to test whether declared transaction values omit royalty increments.

Fraction IV: Proceeds of subsequent resale

Article 65, Fraction IV mandates the addition of "the value of any part of the proceeds of the subsequent sale, transfer, or use of the imported goods that reverts, directly or indirectly, to the seller."

This increment is rare in practice — it arises when the sales contract includes a profit-sharing or contingent-payment clause under which the Mexican importer remits a percentage of its resale revenue back to the foreign seller. The amount must be objectively quantifiable at the time of entry or estimated in good faith and adjusted when the actual reversion is known.

Exclusions from incremental treatment — Article 66

Article 66 lists charges that do not form part of transaction value, even when the importer pays them, provided they are separately identified in the invoice or supporting documents:

• Post-importation charges for construction, installation, assembly, maintenance, or technical assistance performed in Mexico (Article 66(II)(a)).

• Transport, insurance, and handling charges incurred after the goods arrive at the Article 56(I) point (the Mexican port or land crossing) (Article 66(II)(b)).

• Mexican import duties, VAT, and countervailing duties (Article 66(II)(c)).

• Interest charges under a bona fide financing arrangement, provided the financing terms are in writing, the interest rate does not exceed prevailing market rates, and the price is not manipulated to shift duty liability into the interest component (Article 66(II)(d)).

The interplay of Articles 65 and 66 means that the Incoterm negotiated by the buyer and seller largely dictates which charges require increment. Under an FOB (Free On Board) contract, international freight and insurance typically run to the importer's account and must be added if not stated in the invoice price. Under a DDP (Delivered Duty Paid) contract, the seller may prepay duties and inland delivery in Mexico; those amounts are excludable under Article 66 if separately shown.

Evidentiary standard and audit risk

Because every Article 65 increment must rest on "objective and quantifiable data," SAT may reject estimates or post-hoc reconstructions when the importer cannot produce contemporaneous contracts, invoices, wire-transfer records, or allocation schedules. The manifestación de valor — transmitted electronically before the pedimento (entry declaration) is filed — requires the importer to declare each increment category and attach the underlying documentation. Under Rule 1.9.16 and Rule 1.9.17 of the Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior (RGCE), the system generates an acuse de valor (value acknowledgment number) that must appear in Box 43 of the pedimento. If the declared increments are later found incomplete, SAT may issue a value-adjustment determination under Article 78-A, calculate additional duty, and assess penalties for false declaration.

In practice, the highest-risk increment categories for audit are assists (Fraction II(d) — design work and engineering services, which are often recorded in the importer's or a parent company's books but not in the supplier's invoice) and royalties (Fraction III — which flow through separate license agreements and may post to different accounting cost centers). Importers relying on contract-manufacturing arrangements or brand-licensing models should establish internal controls to capture these amounts at the time of purchase-order creation, not at the time of audit.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 65, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 66, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 (Valuation Agreement), Article 8

When the transaction-value method under Ley Aduanera Article 64 cannot be used — because one of the four Article 67 conditions is not met (restrictions exist, the price depends on an indeterminable condition, resale proceeds revert to the seller, or the buyer–seller relationship influenced the price and the importer cannot demonstrate otherwise), or because there was no sale for export to Mexico — the importer must apply five alternative valuation methods in strict hierarchical order. This sequential discipline is the core feature of the WTO Valuation Agreement framework codified in Articles 71 through 78 of the Ley Aduanera: you may not skip a method. Only when a method is inapplicable on its face may you proceed to the next.

The five alternative methods are:

1. Transaction value of identical goods (Article 71)
2. Transaction value of similar goods (Article 72)
3. Deductive value (Article 73)
4. Computed value (Article 74)
5. Fall-back method (Article 78)

Article 71 permits the importer to request that SAT reverse the order of Methods 3 and 4 — that is, to apply computed value (Article 74) before deductive value (Article 73). This is the only permitted flexibility in the hierarchy. The request must be made in writing at the time the importer files the manifestación de valor (the electronic value declaration required under Ley Aduanera Article 64 and Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior Rule 1.9.16); SAT has no discretion to reverse the order sua sponte.

Method 1: Transaction value of identical goods (Article 71)

Article 71 defines "identical goods" (mercancías idénticas) as goods that are the same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality, and commercial reputation, and that were produced in the same country as the goods being valued. Minor differences in appearance do not disqualify goods from being considered identical if they otherwise meet the criteria. The goods must have been sold for export to Mexico at or about the same time as the goods being valued.

The customs value is the transaction value — determined under Articles 64, 65, and 67 — of these identical goods, adjusted for differences in commercial level (wholesale versus retail) and quantity if such differences affected the price. When more than one transaction value for identical goods is available, Article 71 directs the importer to use the lowest transaction value that meets the definition.

The identical-goods method fails when:

• No identical goods were exported to Mexico at or about the same time;
• The importer cannot obtain transaction-value data for any such goods (because the transactions are confidential or involve unrelated third parties who refuse to share pricing); or
• An adjustment for commercial-level or quantity differences cannot be reliably quantified.

In practice, this method is workable for commodities or standardized industrial inputs (steel coils, bulk chemicals, generic electronic components) where multiple suppliers export identical merchandise to multiple Mexican importers at similar times. It is rarely workable for custom-manufactured goods, proprietary assemblies, or goods subject to buyer-specific design.

Method 2: Transaction value of similar goods (Article 72)

Article 72 defines "similar goods" (mercancías similares) as goods that, although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and component materials, perform the same functions, and are commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued. The goods must have been produced in the same country and sold for export to Mexico at or about the same time.

The valuation procedure mirrors Article 71: the customs value is the transaction value of the similar goods, adjusted for commercial-level and quantity differences, and — when multiple transaction values exist — the importer uses the lowest.

Article 72 provides more flexibility than Article 71 because commercial interchangeability does not require physical identity. A Grade-A ball bearing and a Grade-B ball bearing of the same diameter and load rating, produced by different manufacturers in the same country, may be similar goods even if metallurgy or surface finish differs slightly, provided they serve the same industrial function and compete in the same market segment. The burden is on the importer to demonstrate that the proposed comparable is in fact commercially interchangeable and that any price differences reflect only the permissible adjustments for commercial level and quantity, not differences in intrinsic value.

The similar-goods method fails when no commercially interchangeable goods were exported to Mexico at the relevant time, or when the importer cannot obtain transaction-value data or cannot quantify adjustments.

Method 3: Deductive value (Article 73)

Article 73 calculates customs value by working backward from the unit price at which the imported goods (or identical or similar imported goods) are sold in Mexico to an unrelated buyer, in the condition as imported, at or about the time of importation. The deductive-value formula starts with the Mexican resale price and subtracts:

• Commissions usually paid or agreed to be paid, and the usual additions for profit and general expenses, in connection with sales in Mexico of imported goods of the same class or kind;
• The usual costs of transport and insurance, and associated charges, incurred within Mexico; and
• Customs duties, VAT, IEPS, and any countervailing duties paid on importation or on the sale of the goods in Mexico.

If the imported goods (or identical or similar goods) have not been sold in Mexico in the condition as imported, but have been sold after further processing, Article 73 permits deduction of the value added by the assembly, processing, or other work performed in Mexico, provided that value can be determined on the basis of objective and quantifiable data.

The deductive-value method is most useful when the importer is a distributor or retailer who resells the goods in Mexico without transformation, and when industry margin data (usual profit and general expenses for that class of goods) are available from SAT publications, industry association surveys, or the importer's own contemporaneous resale records. It is difficult to apply when:

• The goods are not resold in Mexico (they are consumed internally as inputs);
• The resale is to a related party (the resale price may not reflect arm's-length margins);
• The goods are heavily transformed before resale (requiring a complex value-added deduction); or
• No comparable sales of the same class or kind exist from which to derive usual profit and general expenses.

Method 4: Computed value (Article 74)

Article 74 builds customs value from the ground up by summing the cost of producing the imported goods. The computed-value formula is:

Computed Value = (cost of materials + cost of fabrication or other processing) + (an amount for profit and general expenses usually reflected in sales from the country of exportation to Mexico of goods of the same class or kind) + (cost of transport, insurance, loading, and handling up to the place of importation into Mexico, calculated under Article 65(I)(d)).

The first component — materials plus fabrication — must be based on the producer's actual cost records, not estimates or industry averages. This makes the computed-value method unworkable unless:

• The producer is willing to open its cost accounting to the Mexican importer and to SAT (which rarely happens when the producer and importer are unrelated), or
• The importer is the producer's related party and has access to the producer's books.

The second component — profit and general expenses — is based on sales from the country of exportation to Mexico of goods of the same class or kind. If no such sales exist, or if the producer's profit margin is atypical, Article 74 directs the use of the profit and general expenses "usually reflected" in the industry, which may require reliance on SAT guidance, industry surveys, or the producer's own export-sales data for analogous products.

Because of the documentation burden, computed value is rarely used except in closely held supply chains (parent–subsidiary transfers, joint-venture sourcing) or when the importer affirmatively requests it under Article 71 in preference to deductive value.

Method 5: Fall-back method (Article 78)

Article 78 is the method of last resort. When none of the preceding four methods can be applied, the customs value is determined "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the WTO Valuation Agreement and on the basis of data available in Mexico."

Article 78 expressly prohibits basing customs value on:

• The selling price in Mexico of goods produced in Mexico;
• A system that provides for acceptance of the higher of two alternative values (the lower must be used);
• The price of goods on the domestic market of the country of exportation;
• The cost of production other than computed values determined for identical or similar goods under Article 74;
• The price of the goods for export to a country other than Mexico; or
• Minimum or arbitrary customs values.

In practice, fall-back valuation under Article 78 most commonly uses a flexible application of one of the preceding methods — for example, relaxing the "at or about the same time" requirement for identical or similar goods to accept transaction values from an earlier period, or accepting deductive value based on a resale that occurred more than 90 days after importation. The importer must propose the valuation basis in writing in the manifestación de valor and provide objective support. SAT retains discretion to accept or reject the proposal and, if it rejects the importer's fall-back method, will itself determine value under Article 78 subject to the statutory prohibitions.

Burden of proof and procedural discipline

The importer bears the burden of demonstrating that transaction value is unavailable and that the chosen alternative method (or the next method in the sequence) is the highest-ranking applicable method. The manifestación de valor must declare the method used, the data on which it rests, and — when Methods 1, 2, 3, or 4 are used — the calculations and adjustments. Under the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera Article 110 (as amended February 23, 2026), SAT may reject the declared alternative-method value in an audit and determine value under a different method (or under Article 78-A when the importer has obstructed the audit, failed to maintain records, or used false documentation).

When SAT and the importer disagree on which method applies or on the quantum of an adjustment, the dispute is resolved through the administrative-review procedure at Articles 150–153 of the Ley Aduanera, with further recourse to the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (federal administrative-justice tribunal).

Cross-border interplay: USMCA does not alter the valuation hierarchy

Mexico's obligations under the USMCA (T-MEC) Chapter 5 (Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures) do not override the WTO Valuation Agreement framework. An importer claiming USMCA preferential duty treatment still values the goods under Articles 64–78 of the Ley Aduanera; the origin certification under USMCA Article 5.2 affects the tariff rate applied to that value, not the valuation method itself. Assists and royalties that must be included under Article 65 for valuation purposes are counted separately from the regional-value-content calculation under USMCA Article 4.5; the two frameworks operate in parallel.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 71–78, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 (Valuation Agreement), Articles 2–7 Source: Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera, Article 110, Cámara de Diputados (as amended February 23, 2026)

Transaction value under Ley Aduanera Article 64 is the primary method for determining customs value in Mexico, but it is not unconditional. Article 67 establishes four cumulative conditions (circunstancias) that must be satisfied before the price paid or payable for imported goods may be accepted as the customs value. If even one of the four conditions fails, the importer must proceed to the alternative valuation methods under Articles 71 through 78 — transaction value of identical goods, transaction value of similar goods, deductive value, computed value, or the fall-back method — in strict hierarchical order.

Article 67 codifies the WTO Valuation Agreement's fundamental discipline: transaction value is the preferred method because it reflects the economic reality of the transaction, but only when that transaction is genuine, arm's-length, and free from conditions that distort the declared price or make it impossible to verify. The four conditions are:

1. No restrictions on the disposition or use of the goods by the importer, except those imposed by law or those that do not affect value

Article 67, Fraction I provides that transaction value is acceptable only if there are no restrictions on the sale or use of the goods by the importer, except for:

• Restrictions imposed by law or required by legal provisions in force in Mexican territory (for example, import permits, sanitary or phytosanitary controls, labeling requirements, or environmental regulations);
• Restrictions that limit the geographic territory in which the goods may be resold (such as a contractual clause specifying that the importer may sell the goods only within Mexico or only within North America); or
• Restrictions that do not substantially affect the value of the goods.

A restriction that does disqualify transaction value is one that materially affects the economic benefit the importer can derive from the goods and is imposed by the seller as a condition of sale. Example: the seller stipulates that the importer may use the imported chemicals only to manufacture a specific finished product, and any other use requires the seller's prior written consent and payment of an additional fee. Because this restriction limits the importer's freedom to exploit the goods and is tied to an indeterminable additional consideration, transaction value cannot be used; the importer must apply Article 71 (transaction value of identical goods) or a subsequent method.

2. The sale or price must not depend on any condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in relation to the goods being valued

Article 67, Fraction II requires that the sale for export to Mexico, or the price of the goods, must not be subject to any condition or consideration whose value cannot be determined with reference to the goods being valued.

This condition targets contingent pricing and indeterminable linked obligations. If the contract of sale requires the importer to perform an obligation whose monetary value cannot be objectively quantified at the time of entry — or cannot be allocated to the specific shipment — the transaction price is not a reliable measure of customs value.

Examples of conditions that violate Fraction II:

• The seller agrees to sell 10,000 units of Product A to the importer at USD 5 per unit, provided the importer also purchases "a substantial quantity" of Product B within the next twelve months, with the quantity and price of Product B to be negotiated later. The price of Product A is contingent on an indeterminable future purchase.
• The price is expressed as "invoice price less a volume rebate to be calculated at year-end based on total purchases across all product lines." At the time of entry, the importer cannot determine the final price paid for the specific goods being imported.
• The buyer agrees to purchase the goods at a stated price on the condition that the seller will supply technical assistance services over the following two years, but the scope and value of those services are not defined in the contract. The link between the price and the indeterminable service obligation taints the transaction value.

Contrast a determinable condition: the contract states that the unit price is USD 5.00 if the importer orders fewer than 5,000 units, and USD 4.75 if the order equals or exceeds 5,000 units. This is a quantity discount with objectively quantifiable tiers; the price for the shipment being valued is known, and transaction value remains usable.

3. No part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the goods may revert to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made under Article 65

Article 67, Fraction III provides that transaction value is acceptable only if no part of the proceeds from the importer's subsequent resale, transfer, or use of the goods reverts, directly or indirectly, to the seller — unless that reversion is quantifiable and can be added to the price paid under Article 65, Fraction IV.

The classic scenario is a profit-sharing arrangement: the seller ships finished goods to the importer at an invoice price of USD 10 per unit, and the contract stipulates that the importer will remit 15% of the net proceeds from each resale back to the seller. Because the reversion is objectively quantifiable (15% of a known resale price), the importer may use transaction value by adding the expected reversion amount under Article 65(IV). If the actual reversion differs from the estimate declared at entry, the importer must file a correction under the post-entry adjustment rules.

If the reversion formula is not objectively quantifiable — for example, "the importer will pay the seller an amount to be agreed upon based on market conditions prevailing at the time of resale" — then Fraction III is violated, and transaction value cannot be used. The importer must proceed to Article 71.

SAT auditors scrutinize proceeds-reversion clauses in related-party supply agreements, particularly in industries where the Mexican importer is a captive distributor. The line between a bona fide royalty (which must be added under Article 65(III) if it is a condition of sale) and a proceeds reversion (which must be added under Article 65(IV) or which disqualifies transaction value entirely if indeterminable) can be narrow; the key is whether the payment is tied to the goods themselves or to the financial outcome of the importer's resale activity.

4. There must be no relationship between the buyer and seller, or — if a relationship exists — the relationship must not have influenced the price

Article 67, Fraction IV requires that there be no relationship (vinculación) between the importer and the seller. If a relationship does exist, transaction value may still be used, but only if the importer demonstrates that the relationship did not influence the price.

What constitutes a "relationship"? Article 68 of the Ley Aduanera (incorporating WTO Valuation Agreement Article 15.4) defines related parties. The definition includes:

• Officers or directors of one entity serving as officers or directors of the other;
• Parties that are legally recognized business partners (socios);
• An employer–employee relationship;
• Any person who directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds 5% or more of the outstanding voting shares or capital of both entities;
• One party directly or indirectly controlling the other;
• Both parties being directly or indirectly controlled by a third party;
• Together the parties directly or indirectly control a third party; or
• The parties are members of the same family (spouses, lineal ancestors or descendants, siblings).

The 5% threshold is low by comparison to many related-party definitions in other tax contexts. In practice, most multinational supply chains involve at least one related-party transaction — parent company to subsidiary, headquarters to foreign branch, or sister companies under common control. Article 67(IV) does not per se prohibit the use of transaction value for related-party imports; rather, it shifts the burden to the importer to prove that the relationship did not influence the price.

How does the importer demonstrate that the relationship did not influence the price? Article 69 of the Ley Aduanera sets out the evidentiary framework. The importer must show either:

• That the circumstances of sale indicate that the relationship did not influence the price — for example, the price was set according to the seller's normal pricing practices for unrelated buyers, or the price is adequate to ensure recovery of all costs plus a profit representative of the firm's overall profit over a recent period in sales of the same class or kind of goods; or
• That the declared transaction value of the related-party goods closely approximates (se aproxime) — at or about the same time — one of three "test values":

1. The transaction value of identical goods sold for export to Mexico to unrelated buyers;
2. The customs value of identical or similar goods determined under the deductive-value method (Article 73); or
3. The customs value of identical or similar goods determined under the computed-value method (Article 74).

"Closely approximates" is a term of art. SAT has historically applied a tolerance band: if the related-party price is within ±5% of one of the test values, the relationship is presumed not to have influenced the price. Wider deviations require detailed explanation — transfer-pricing documentation, benchmarking studies, or evidence of the seller's standard terms of sale.

In practice, the Article 67(IV) / Article 69 related-party gateway is the most frequent valuation battleground in Mexico. SAT auditors routinely issue value-adjustment determinations under Article 78-A when:

• The importer declares a related-party transaction value that is materially below the transaction value paid by unrelated importers for the same or similar goods imported from the same country at the same time;
• The importer fails to provide the manifestación de valor (value declaration) or fails to attach transfer-pricing reports, intercompany agreements, or test-value comparisons when requested; or
• The importer's declared value omits assists (Article 65(II)) or royalties (Article 65(III)) that flow separately from the purchase invoice but are in fact conditions of sale in a related-party context.

When the importer cannot satisfy the Article 69 test, SAT will reject the declared transaction value and apply Article 71 (transaction value of identical goods sold to unrelated buyers) or a subsequent method. The importer has recourse to administrative review under Articles 150–153 of the Ley Aduanera and to judicial review before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa.

Burden of proof and documentation

The manifestación de valor, which the importer transmits electronically before filing the pedimento (entry declaration), must declare whether any of the four Article 67 conditions is not met and — in the case of related-party transactions — must attest either that the relationship did not influence the price or provide the Article 69 test-value data. Importers who fail to submit the manifestación de valor, or who submit an incomplete or false declaration, face penalties under Article 184 of the Ley Aduanera (false declaration) and exposure to value adjustment under Article 78-A (authority to determine value when the importer has used false documents, failed to provide supporting information, or obstructed the exercise of audit powers).

The interplay of Articles 67, 68, 69, and 78-A creates a documentary discipline: the importer must affirmatively establish, at the time of entry, that all four conditions are met. SAT does not bear the initial burden of proving that a condition is violated; the importer bears the burden of proving compliance. Once SAT issues a value-adjustment determination, the administrative and judicial review procedures shift some evidentiary burden back to the authority — SAT must articulate which condition failed and on what evidence — but the initial gate is on the importer.

Consequences of failure

If any one of the four Article 67 conditions is not satisfied, transaction value is unavailable. The importer may not elect to use transaction value by making an upward adjustment to cure the defect. Instead, the importer must apply the alternative methods in the strict hierarchy prescribed by Articles 71 through 78. There is no discretion to skip to a more convenient method; the sequence is mandatory, and each method may be used only if the preceding method is inapplicable.

In cross-border supply chains involving USMCA (T-MEC) or other free-trade-agreement preferential treatment, the Article 67 gateway operates in parallel with — but independently from — the origin rules. An importer claiming USMCA preferential duty treatment must still value the goods under Articles 64–78 of the Ley Aduanera. The origin certification under USMCA Article 5.2 affects the tariff rate applied to the determined customs value, not the valuation method itself. Assists and royalties that must be added under Article 65 for customs-valuation purposes do not automatically disqualify goods from USMCA origin, but they do affect the regional-value-content calculation if the importer is relying on the net-cost or transaction-value method under USMCA Article 4.5.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 67, 68, 69, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 (Valuation Agreement), Articles 1 and 15

When the Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT) determines that an importer has used false documentation, failed to provide supporting elements for the declared value, or obstructed the exercise of audit powers, SAT may reject the importer's declared customs value and unilaterally determine value under the statutory methods set out in Articles 64 through 78 of the Ley Aduanera. This enforcement authority is codified in Article 78-A of the Ley Aduanera (as amended November 19, 2025) and operationalized through Article 110 of the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera (as amended February 23, 2026). Article 78-A is the primary statutory basis for post-entry value adjustments and additional duty assessments in Mexico.

Article 78-A: Three statutory grounds for rejecting declared value

Article 78-A provides that SAT, "in the definitive resolution issued under the procedures prescribed in Articles 150 through 153 of this Law," may reject the customs value declared by the importer and determine value using the methods established in Articles 71 through 78 (the five alternative methods: transaction value of identical goods, transaction value of similar goods, deductive value, computed value, and the fall-back method) when any of the following three conditions occurs:

1. False documentation or false information was used to determine the declared value. The statute does not define "false" (documentación o información falsa); in administrative and judicial practice, SAT and the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (the federal administrative court with jurisdiction over customs disputes) have held that "false" encompasses invoices with understated prices, fabricated third-party comparables submitted to support a related-party transaction value under Article 69, backdated contracts, and fictitious declarations concerning assists or royalties. The statute does not distinguish between intentional misrepresentation and negligent error; both trigger Article 78-A.

1. The importer fails to provide the elements that were taken into consideration in determining the declared value. When SAT exercises its audit powers (facultades de comprobación) under the Código Fiscal de la Federación and requests supporting documentation — contracts, transfer-pricing reports, intercompany agreements, allocation schedules for assists, royalty licenses, the manifestación de valor (value declaration) and its attachments — the importer must produce them. Failure to produce requested documentation, even when the importer's declared value was in fact correct, triggers Article 78-A. This is a procedural ground; SAT need not prove that the declared value was incorrect, only that the importer obstructed verification.

1. The importer opposes or obstructs the exercise of SAT's audit powers. The statute does not enumerate specific acts of opposition; it incorporates by reference the general audit-obstruction framework in the Código Fiscal de la Federación. In practice, opposition includes denying SAT auditors physical access to the importer's facilities, refusing to allow inspection or sampling of imported goods, destroying or altering records during an audit, or failing to appear at a scheduled audit interview.

When any of these three conditions is met, SAT may disregard the declared value entirely and apply the alternative valuation methods in the strict hierarchical order prescribed by Articles 71 through 78. SAT applies the highest-ranking method for which it has data; the statute does not permit SAT to select the method that yields the highest value. Article 78-A incorporates the same sequential discipline that binds the importer under Articles 71–78: you may not skip a method.

Reglamento Article 110: Procedural framework for value rejection

Article 110 of the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera provides that SAT, "in the exercise of its verification powers (facultades de comprobación), may reject the declared value" when any of the three Article 78-A conditions is met. The Reglamento clarifies that the rejection and substitute value determination must be issued in a formal assessment resolution (resolución determinante) under the administrative procedures set out in the Ley Aduanera and the Código Fiscal de la Federación. SAT may not reject a value informally or through correspondence; the rejection must be a formal administrative act that identifies the ground, cites the evidence, specifies the alternative method applied, and calculates the additional duty.

The Reglamento does not prescribe the contents of the resolution beyond what the Código Fiscal requires for all tax assessments (Article 38 of the Código Fiscal mandates that all assessment resolutions state the facts, cite the violated provisions, and calculate the tax, interest, and penalties). In practice, SAT resolutions under Article 78-A identify the specific documents SAT deems false, the specific information requests the importer failed to answer, or the specific acts of obstruction SAT observed; cite the alternative valuation method SAT applied and the data SAT relied upon (for example, the transaction value of identical goods imported by third parties on specified dates, or the deductive value calculated from the importer's own resale records); and calculate the difference between the duty owed on the SAT-determined value and the duty actually paid on the declared value.

Penalties for false declarations: Article 184, Fraction III

When SAT determines under Article 78-A that the importer used false documentation or false information to determine the declared value, the importer is liable for the penalty prescribed in Article 184, Fraction III of the Ley Aduanera. Article 184(III) (as amended November 19, 2025) imposes a penalty on any importer who "declares in the pedimento [entry declaration] or in the manifestación de valor data that are inexact or false, or omits any data" required by the Ley Aduanera, provided the omission of duties exceeds the de minimis threshold specified in Article 184(III).

The text of Article 184(III) as of November 2025 cross-references Article 185 for the penalty amount. Article 185, Fraction III provides that the penalty for the offense described in Article 184(III) is "130% to 150% of the evaded duties" when the evaded amount exceeds the threshold specified in Article 184(III). The statute indexes the threshold annually under Article 5 of the Ley Aduanera; the statute does not publish the current peso amount, which is calculated and published separately by SAT in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette) each January.

The penalty is in addition to the omitted duties and interest (recargos) calculated under Article 21 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación. Article 73 of the Código Fiscal allows the penalty to be reduced or eliminated if the importer self-corrects and pays the additional duty before SAT initiates an audit; the reduction is 100% if the importer corrects spontaneously, 80% if the importer corrects after SAT notifies the importer of an audit but before the audit commences, and 50% if the importer corrects during the audit but before SAT issues a preliminary assessment.

Administrative review under Article 150 and recourse to the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa

An importer who receives an Article 78-A value-adjustment determination may challenge it through either or both of two procedural avenues:

1. Recurso de revocación (administrative appeal) under Article 150 of the Ley Aduanera. Article 150 provides that the importer may file an administrative appeal within "thirty business days following the day on which notification of the resolution took effect." The appeal is decided by a different office within SAT (the statute does not specify which office; SAT assigns appeals by internal delegation rules published in the Reglamento Interior del Servicio de Administración Tributaria). The administrative-appeal authority may affirm, modify, or revoke the value determination. If the appeal is denied or only partially granted, the importer may escalate to judicial review.

1. Juicio contencioso administrativo (administrative litigation) before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (TFJA). Article 151 of the Ley Aduanera provides that an importer may file suit in the TFJA "within forty-five days following the day on which notification of the resolution took effect," either after exhausting the administrative appeal or directly without filing an administrative appeal. The TFJA is an autonomous federal administrative court with jurisdiction over tax and customs disputes under Article 73, Fraction XXIX-H of the Mexican Constitution. The TFJA reviews SAT's determination on both law and fact. TFJA judgments are subject to further appeal (amparo directo) to the federal circuit courts on constitutional grounds under Articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution.

The filing of an administrative appeal or a TFJA lawsuit does not suspend the importer's obligation to pay the additional duty, interest, and penalties. To suspend collection pending the outcome of the appeal, the importer must post a guarantee (garantía fiscal) under Article 141 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación. Article 141 permits guarantees in the form of a surety bond, a bank trust, or a cash deposit; the amount of the guarantee must cover the contested tax, interest, and penalties, plus a margin specified in Article 141 (the margin depends on the type of guarantee).

Currency and immediate applicability

The November 19, 2025 amendments to the Ley Aduanera did not change the substantive grounds for Article 78-A rejection of declared value; those grounds date to the 1998 enactment of Article 78-A. The February 23, 2026 amendments to the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera revised Article 110 to clarify that SAT's rejection authority under Article 78-A applies both when SAT conducts an on-site inspection (visita domiciliaria, the audit procedure under Article 42 of the Código Fiscal) and when SAT conducts a desk audit by requesting information (revisión de gabinete, the procedure under Article 48 of the Código Fiscal). Prior to the 2026 amendment, some importers argued that Article 78-A applied only to on-site inspections; the amended Reglamento resolves that ambiguity in SAT's favor.

Article 78-A applies to all imports into Mexican customs territory, regardless of origin or preferential tariff treatment. An importer claiming preferential duty treatment under the USMCA (T-MEC), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), or another free-trade agreement is still subject to SAT valuation audits under Article 78-A. The origin certification under USMCA Article 5.2 affects the tariff rate applied to the customs value, not the valuation method or SAT's audit authority. However, because USMCA regional value content is calculated using either the transaction-value method or the net-cost method under USMCA Article 4.5, an Article 78-A upward adjustment to the customs value may require the importer to recalculate origin. If the adjusted value causes the regional value content to fall below the USMCA threshold, the importer must pay the most-favored-nation (MFN) duty rate on the SAT-determined value, plus interest and penalties for the original preferential-duty claim (which is now deemed incorrect).

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 78-A, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera, Article 110, Cámara de Diputados (as amended February 23, 2026) Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 150, 151, 184, 185, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025)

Every importer into Mexico must electronically transmit a Comprobante de Valor Electrónico (COVE) — also known as the Manifestación de Valor Electrónica (MVE) — through the Ventanilla Única de Comercio Exterior Mexicana (VUCEM) before filing the import pedimento (customs declaration). The COVE is the digital successor to the paper manifestación de valor. As of July 31, 2026, the electronic transmission is mandatory for all definitive imports, with limited exceptions; this deadline reflects SAT/ANAM's most recent extension. Failure to declare the COVE acknowledgment number in the pedimento will block customs clearance.

The legal basis rests on Ley Aduanera Article 59, Fraction III (importer's obligation to provide value data) and RGCE 2026 Rules 1.9.16 and 1.9.17. The COVE format — labeled "E2: Manifestación de Valor" — is published in Anexo 1 of the RGCE 2026, available for voluntary use since August 1, 2025. The electronic COVE/MVE will be voluntary until July 30, 2026; after that, it is compulsory for all definitive imports.

Recent enforcement timeline — summary of postponements

• Originally, SAT aimed to make the MVE via VUCEM mandatory December 9, 2025 (RGCE 2026 transitional; Diario Oficial December 2025).
• On December 8, 2025, SAT postponed this obligation to April 1, 2026 (Comunicado 65/2025).
• On March 31, 2026, SAT extended the grace period to June 1, 2026 (Comunicado 23/2026), with non-enforcement through May.
• On June 2, 2026, a third extension was issued; the new mandatory date is July 31, 2026, per the "Primera Versión Anticipada de la Segunda Resolución de Modificaciones a las RGCE para 2026" and SAT/ANAM joint communiqué 16/2026.

What the COVE/MVE must declare The importer must submit invoice-by-invoice information: vendor data; related-party relationship/status under Ley Aduanera Article 68 and influence on price per Article 67(IV)/69; valuation method (Articles 64, 71–78); price paid/payable; all Article 65 incremental charges (assists, royalties, etc.); Article 66 exclusions; and attach supporting records (invoices, contracts, proof of payment, transfer-pricing studies, etc.), as validated by the VUCEM system.

VUCEM platform and process Importers or their legal representatives with a current e.firma must (1) log into VUCEM, (2) select the COVE/MVE (Formato E2), (3) input the required data and upload documentation for each invoice, (4) digitally sign and transmit the declaration, and (5) provide the acknowledgment (acuse de valor) number to the customs broker for Box 43 of the pedimento. Customs clearance will not proceed for covered operations without a valid COVE number. Brokers cannot sign the COVE/MVE; SAT's policy is for the importer to attest under oath directly.

Exceptions and interplay with IMMEX, re-imports, and USMCA Exceptions are detailed in RGCE 2026 Rule 1.5.1, including: returned Mexican-origin goods under Article 103, certain temporary imports under IMMEX (extended by latest RGCE until July 31, 2026), and operations without a pedimento (ex. courier/parcel). After July 31, temporary IMMEX imports are also covered unless further SAT extension is issued. Claiming USMCA (T-MEC) or other FTA preference never exempts the importer from submitting a COVE/MVE for valuation — only affects the rate applicable to the value declared.

Audit and penalty risk Failing to file the COVE/MVE will block customs entry; filing a false declaration (incorrect increments, omitted royalties, fabricated documentation or relationship status) subjects the importer to Ley Aduanera Article 184/185 penalties (130%–150% of evaded duties), value adjustment under Article 78-A, and possible loss of FTA preference post-adjustment.

Current status (June 2026): voluntary until July 31, then compulsory After repeated extensions, SAT and ANAM have set July 31, 2026 as the hard deadline for electronic MVE via VUCEM for all definitive Mexican imports that require a manifestación de valor. Importers should use the period of voluntary filing to test systems, refine documentation, and prepare for unconditional enforcement on August 1, 2026. No further extension is published as of June 2026.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 59, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Rules 1.9.16 & 1.9.17, Anexo 1, SAT (published Dec. 27, 2025 and Jan. 8, 2026) Source: Comunicado de Prensa Conjunto 16/2026: Manifestación de Valor Electrónica, ANAM (June 2, 2026)

Article 66 of the Ley Aduanera—Exclusions from customs value

Article 66 of the Ley Aduanera defines charges that must not be included in the customs value (transaction value) of imported goods, provided certain documentary and invoice conditions are met. This is critical to get right: SAT routinely challenges improper inclusions of excludable expenses, as well as omissions where an importer deducts charges that don’t qualify.

Enumerated exclusions—Article 66 Fractions I–IV

Mexico’s Article 66 reflects WTO Valuation Agreement Article 8.2, listing:

• (I) Charges for construction, installation, assembly, maintenance, or technical assistance performed after importation, provided such costs are clearly distinguished from the price paid or payable. If, for instance, an importer buys industrial machinery and separately contracts for installation in Mexico (with those costs shown separately in the invoice or documents), those installation charges are not added to the customs value.

• (II)(a) Inland transport, insurance, and related costs incurred after goods have arrived at the point of entry (Mexican border or port). Only international legs to the Mexican border are dutiable; domestic carriage within Mexico, if itemized, is excluded from customs value.

• (II)(b) Import duties and taxes paid in Mexico—including General Import Tax (IGI), Value Added Tax (IVA), and IEPS—if separately identified. These taxes are never included in the basis for duty calculation.

• (II)(c) Interest charges stemming from legitimate, written financing arrangements between buyer and seller, provided that (1) such charges are at or below prevailing market rates, (2) the arrangement is proved by contemporaneous written contract, and (3) the price paid or payable is not adjusted artificially to shift dutiable value to non-dutiable interest.

Documentary discipline and SAT audit posture

The exclusions apply only if each charge is segregated—either in the commercial invoice or supporting documentation. If, for example, post-import technical assistance or post-border carriage is lumped into the sales price (not separated), SAT will include those amounts in customs value. The burden is on the importer to demonstrate the deductible nature by clear, objective records.

In cases of doubt, SAT auditors will default to including the charge in the customs value. SAT emphasizes documentary consistency—note that related-party arrangements (between subsidiaries, for example) are scrutinized more heavily.

Interplay with Article 65 and Incoterms

Getting the exclusion right often comes down to Incoterms and how the invoice/spreadsheet separates cost components. Under Delivered Duty Paid (DDP), for example, the price often lumps in post-border carriage and duties; unless specifically extracted and evidenced, these amounts can be swept into the value for duty even if they would be excludable if separately shown.

Current legal reference: Article 66, Ley Aduanera, as amended 19 November 2025.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 66, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025)

Article 68—Who is a related party under Mexican customs law?

Article 68 of the Ley Aduanera provides the operative definition of "related parties" (partes relacionadas) for customs valuation. The definition follows WTO Valuation Agreement Article 15.4 almost verbatim, but is implemented and interpreted specifically by SAT/ANAM for Mexican import compliance—distinct from the income-tax transfer pricing regime of the Income Tax Law (LISR).

A party is considered related to the importer if ANY of the following are true (summary, refer to full text for details):

1. One directly or indirectly controls the other.
2. Both are controlled by a third party.
3. Together, they control a third party.
4. Either is an officer/director of both enterprises.
5. They are legally recognized business partners (socios).
6. Employer–employee relationship exists.
7. One holds, directly or indirectly, at least 5% ownership/voting control in both entities.
8. They are members of the same family (spouse, ancestors, descendants, siblings).

The statutory 5% ownership threshold is notably low and can trigger related-party status for minority shareholdings common in joint-ventures, supply chains, or groups with partial cross-holdings.

Transfer-pricing documentation obligations in import valuation

Whenever an import involves a related seller, the importer must demonstrate—at the time of customs clearance—that the relationship "did not influence the price" (Article 67, section IV). Article 69 establishes two evidentiary channels:

• Proving the price is consistent with arm's-length transactions (normal commercial practices; adequate profit margin)
• Supplying direct comparison data: transaction value for identical/similar goods to unrelated buyers, deductive or computed value as per Articles 73/74.

Accordingly, SAT expects the importer to attach—via the manifestación de valor or COVE—contemporaneous documentation:

• Intercompany supply contracts.
• Any local or OECD-style transfer-pricing reports (Estudio de Precios de Transferencia) prepared under LISR Art. 76, although not dispositive, are persuasive.
• Sales data for identical/similar goods to unrelated buyers, if available.
• Calculation worksheets showing any claimed test-value approximation.

SAT auditors rely heavily on these documents in post-entry audits. Incomplete, noncontemporaneous, or purely "tax-side" documentation—without direct customs price comparables—may result in declared value rejection under Article 78-A.

Key takeaway:

Mexican customs law applies its own related-party test and expects full, shipment-specific evidentiary backing, not just an annual transfer-pricing study. Importers should treat Article 68/69 compliance as a real-time operational workflow, not a year-end tax afterthought.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 68, Cámara de Diputados (as amended Nov. 19, 2025) Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 69, Cámara de Diputados

Temporary imports under the IMMEX program (Industria Manufacturera, Maquiladora y de Servicios de Exportación) are governed by specific legal authorities, notably Ley Aduanera Articles 106–112, the IMMEX Decree, and operational provisions in the Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior (RGCE). These provisions allow authorized IMMEX entities to import raw materials, parts, machinery, and equipment on a temporary basis for processing or repair, with the obligation to re-export the resulting products.

Valuation basis for temporary IMMEX imports Ley Aduanera Article 106(II) cross-references the standard customs valuation rules. The customs value for temporary IMMEX entries must be determined under Articles 64–78 (transaction value method with increments/exclusions per Articles 65/66, and alternatives as needed). However, import duties and value-added tax (IVA) are deferred at the time of entry (Ley Aduanera Art. 104, 112), unless the goods are subsequently converted to definitive import status. Declaring value at entry is an audit, statistical, and control requirement—not an immediate tax calculation trigger.

MVE/COVE filing requirement — updated deadline (July 2026) Previously, IMMEX temporary imports were generally exempt from transmitting the manifestación de valor/COVE. RGCE 2026 Rule 7.3.1, Fraction XXIV stated that the requirement did not apply unless explicitly requested by SAT. However, as of the Segunda Resolución de Modificaciones a las RGCE para 2026 (published June 2026), the mandatory deadline for transmitting the Manifestación de Valor Electrónica (MVE) for IMMEX temporary imports has been extended to July 31, 2026. IMMEX companies must comply with the electronic manifestación de valor submission via the VUCEM platform for temporary import operations from that date onward, unless SAT prescribes a further extension.

This represents a material change from previous guidance. The prior text, which referenced a 1 June 2026 deadline, is superseded by the extension—for all importers, including those under IMMEX programs. Until July 31, 2026, IMMEX operators may continue to file under prior-year RGCE (paper/escrito libre) unless required by SAT during audit under Ley Aduanera Art. 59.

Valuation method where there is no sale If goods enter under IMMEX without a sale for export (e.g., consigned capital equipment at zero or nominal invoice value), sequential application of non-transaction-value methods is required (Arts. 71–72—identical/similar goods value; Art. 73—deductive value; Art. 74—computed value; Art. 78—fall-back). Computed value relies on cost of production plus profit, documented per Ley Aduanera Art. 74 and WTO Valuation Agreement Art. 6. "Assists" (Article 65(II))—goods/services supplied free or at reduced cost—must be included in value. Full evidentiary support is demanded for future audits.

SAT/ANAM audit posture Despite duty/IVA deferral, both SAT and ANAM retain authority under Ley Aduanera Art. 78-A to review declared values, request supporting records, and, when incomplete or unverifiable, recalculate customs value and impose penalties. The deferral regime does not protect IMMEX entries from later scrutiny or value adjustment.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 106–112, Cámara de Diputados (as amended Nov. 19, 2025) Source: Decreto IMMEX, Diario Oficial de la Federación, Article 12 Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Segunda Resolución de Modificaciones, SAT (published June 2026), Rule 7.3.1, Fraction XXIV, and transitional provisions

Under Mexican customs law, significant statutory amendments to Articles 184 and 185 of the Ley Aduanera were promulgated in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) on November 19, 2025, with legal effect as of that date. Effective January 1, 2026, the Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior (RGCE) for 2026 updated and published the penalty amounts in Anexo 13 for multiple penalty fracciones under Article 185. Most notably, a new Fracción XV was added to Article 185, expanding the list of infracciones and penalty calculation bases. Practitioners should verify the applicable fracción for any infraction and cross-reference the latest DOF-published annexes for the current amounts.

Penalty calculation: Amended structure, new ranges as of RGCE 2026 (Anexo 13)

For offenses under Article 184, Fraction III (e.g., declaring inexact, incomplete, or false data in the pedimento or manifestación de valor, resulting in a duty shortfall above the threshold), Article 185 sets the penalty framework, which now includes:

• For Fracción III and others affected: penalty amounts are indexed annually and specified in the DOF’s Anexo 13 to the RGCE. As of January 2026, the published ranges have been raised; e.g., Fracción III may set penalties at 130%–150% of omitted duties, and minimum/maximum absolute fine amounts for other infractions are detailed in Anexo 13.
• New Fracción XV addresses additional infractions and corresponding penalties, as per the November 2025 DOF decree.

Importers must consult both the amended statute and the current Anexo 13 for specific fine levels. Penalty liability arises only when the unpaid duties exceed the annually published de minimis threshold.

Voluntary correction and penalty mitigation (Código Fiscal Article 73, unchanged)

Article 73 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación allows substantial penalty reductions for self-correction:

• If the importer corrects and pays before SAT audit or notification, the penalty is fully waived.
• If correction follows notification but precedes an audit, the penalty is reduced by 80%.
• If correction occurs during the audit (and before assessment), the penalty is reduced by 50%.

The procedural requirement remains: the correction must be proactive and duty+interest paid via supplementary pedimento to qualify for these reductions.

2026 context and best practices

All importers and brokers should closely monitor DOF publications, specifically both Ley Aduanera amendments and RGCE Anexos, as penalty scales can shift annually. The expanded infraction categories and increased fines reflect an enforcement trend confirmed in the 2026 reforms. Relying on static figures from prior years is a common audit risk. Always verify with the official DOF site and the year’s applicable Anexo 13 before making penalty exposure calculations.

Statute and currency references:

• Ley Aduanera, Articles 184, 185 (as amended by DOF November 19, 2025, with Fracción XV added); see also DOF 19/11/2025
• Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Anexo 13 (DOF Dec. 27, 2025, penalties for 2026): DOF 27/12/2025
• Código Fiscal de la Federación, Article 73 (as in force Jan. 2026): Cámara de Diputados

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 184 and 185, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: DOF – Decreto de reformas a la Ley Aduanera, 19/11/2025 Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Anexo 13, DOF 27/12/2025 Source: Código Fiscal de la Federación, Article 73, Cámara de Diputados

When the Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT) issues a customs value adjustment or penalty determination, the importer has structured legal recourse under Mexican law. Two principal challenge paths exist: an administrative appeal before SAT under Ley Aduanera Articles 150–153, and judicial review before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (TFJA). Each step has strict timelines, procedural requirements, and statutory grounding.

1. Administrative appeal (recurso de revocación — Ley Aduanera Articles 150–153)

Under Article 150, an importer has thirty business days from notification of the contested resolution (for example, a value adjustment under Article 78-A or penalty under Article 184) to file a recurso de revocación with SAT. The appeal must identify the contested act, state legal/factual grounds, and attach supporting evidence. Filing is done with the SAT office cited in the resolution or by internal delegation (Article 150).

SAT must resolve the appeal within three months (Article 151). If it fails to do so, the law presumes a negative response (“afirmativa ficta”), entitling the importer to proceed to judicial review (Article 152). Most cases require this administrative step before judicial review, but the importer may also pursue judicial action directly when specifically permitted by law or when SAT omits notification.

Administrative appeals do not suspend payment automatically. To suspend collection, the importer must post a guarantee (garantía fiscal) in the form of a surety bond, bank trust, or cash deposit, in an amount covering contested duties, interest, penalties, and a margin, as set out in Código Fiscal Article 141.

2. Judicial review (juicio contencioso administrativo — Ley Aduanera Article 151; TFJA)

Following the administrative appeal, or in certain cases directly, the importer may initiate judicial review (juicio contencioso administrativo) before the TFJA. The suit must be filed within forty-five business days of notification of the adverse resolution or “afirmativa ficta” (Article 151). The TFJA examines the case de novo, considering both law and fact. The initial petition must state the act challenged, evidence, and legal grounds.

Collection remains enforceable unless a garantía fiscal is posted per Article 141 of the Código Fiscal. The guarantee must be maintained through the outcome of the proceedings. Decisions of the TFJA may be appealed to federal courts by amparo proceedings, which is a separate constitutional avenue outside the explicit scope of the Ley Aduanera.

Key procedural points:

• Deadlines: 30 business days for administrative appeal; 3 months for SAT resolution; 45 business days for judicial suit.
• Guarantee (garantía fiscal) per Código Fiscal Article 141 is necessary to stay enforcement during appeal or suit.
• Every procedural step (filing, evidence, guarantee, right to further appeal) is statutorily defined; failure to meet deadlines forfeits appeal rights.

Statute currency: Ley Aduanera latest reform November 19, 2025; Código Fiscal de la Federación as in force June 2026.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 150–153, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: Código Fiscal de la Federación, Article 141, Cámara de Diputados

Mexican customs law imposes rigorous recordkeeping and retention requirements on importers to support the declared customs value of imported goods. The principal statutory reference is Ley Aduanera Article 59, Fractions III and V, which obligates importers to maintain, at their Mexican fiscal domicile, all documents relied upon to determine, justify, or support the customs value stated on each pedimento (entry declaration). This includes commercial invoices, contracts, proof of payment, transport documents, manifests of value (COVE/MVE), documentation of Article 65 increments (such as assists and royalties), and all other supporting materials for the valuation method used under Articles 64–78.

The minimum retention period is five years from the date of importation (Article 59, Fraction V). Records may be kept in original or digital format, provided authenticity and integrity are preserved.

Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera Article 81 specifies the formats and categories of documents that importers, customs brokers, and agents must keep, aligning with the documentary discipline imposed by the SAT (Servicio de Administración Tributaria) and ANAM (Agencia Nacional de Aduanas de México). This covers transactional, contractual, accounting, and shipment-level documentation used for customs purposes.

Material development—2026 regulatory amendment: Effective February 23, 2026, the Mexican government promulgated Article 81-A of the Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera. This amendment introduces a significant enhancement: importers must now implement formal internal control procedures to ensure that all documentation relevant to customs valuation is properly obtained, classified, retained, and made available for SAT/ANAM review upon request. Article 81-A requires that internal controls be documented, kept up-to-date, and periodically reviewed, and that all responsible personnel be trained in these procedures. This elevates compliance: simple document retention, as mandated by Article 59 and Article 81, is now insufficient—importers must demonstrate a structured compliance program addressing document procurement, verification, retention, and accessibility. Failure to comply exposes importers to value rejection under Article 78-A and potential administrative penalties.

In practice, incomplete documentation (missing value proofs, payment records, contracts for assists/royalties) remains a leading cause for SAT to challenge declared values and apply adjustments or penalties. As of June 2026, all importers should review their customs-valuation documentation workflows to ensure the new internal-control requirements of Reglamento Article 81-A are met and that training, retention, audit, and escalation processes are documented in compliance files.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 59, Cámara de Diputados (as amended November 19, 2025) Source: Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera, Article 81, Cámara de Diputados Source: Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera, Article 81-A, Cámara de Diputados (effective February 23, 2026) Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Rules 1.9.16/1.9.17, SAT

Mexican customs valuation law strictly regulates when commercial discounts, rebates, and retroactive price adjustments can reduce the dutiable value of imports. Article 64 of the Ley Aduanera defines transaction value as "the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to Mexico," and explicitly requires that additions or deductions to this value be “objective and quantifiable at the time of import.”

Documented and unconditional discounts before importation Discounts—such as direct invoice reductions or early-payment incentives—are allowable deductions from customs value only if they are granted prior to or at the moment of import, and the discounted amount is both unconditional and clearly documented in the import invoice or sales contract. The RGCE 2026, Rule 1.9.16 (effective December 27, 2025), which governs the electronic manifestación de valor (COVE/MVE), requires importers to itemize the transaction value and the basis for any reduction, substantiated by commercial invoice, contract, or credit note showing the discount at the time of import declaration.

SAT and ANAM, as a matter of both statute and administrative instruction, reject discounts or rebates that are: (a) contingent on future performance (e.g., annual volume rebates); (b) calculated after importation, or (c) not fixed and knowable on the customs declaration date. This aligns with Article 8.3 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, which bars adjustments for amounts that are not “objectively determined at the time of importation.” For instance, a discount stated on the commercial invoice as "3% for payment within 15 days, already deducted" qualifies, while seller credits or rebates issued after import—such as year-end bonuses or target achievements—are not accepted to reduce customs value.

Post-importation or retroactive adjustments Mexican practice under Article 64 and confirmed in RGCE 2026 Rule 1.9.16 only allows customs value corrections for discounts or rebates if they were unequivocally determined and documented before import. Any post-entry rebate, credit, or price reduction—unless correcting a proven clerical error—cannot serve as grounds for a downward value adjustment in a supplementary declaration under Ley Aduanera Article 89. The regulation prescribes that all value elements must be “objective, quantifiable and known” upon customs entry; SAT’s enforcement approach is to default against importer-claimed, retroactive discounts that surface after clearance.

In summary: to reduce customs value in Mexico, the discount or rebate must be unconditional, fixed, and demonstrably documented prior to or at importation. Retroactive and conditional rebates, including supplier credits and contingent bonuses, are routinely excluded by statute, regulation, and administrative enforcement.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 64, Cámara de Diputados (as amended Nov. 19, 2025) Source: WTO Valuation Agreement, Article 8.3 Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Rule 1.9.16, SAT (effective Dec. 27, 2025)

When transaction value and the alternative methods based on comparable sales or resale price are unavailable, Article 74 of Mexico’s Ley Aduanera allows customs value to be determined by the “computed value” method. This framework mirrors Article 6 of the WTO Valuation Agreement and sits next-to-last in the statutory hierarchy—one step before the fall-back method under Article 78.

Statutory elements of computed value (Ley Aduanera Article 74)

The customs value under the computed value method is the sum of:

• The cost or value, at the time of import, of materials plus fabrication or other processing employed in producing the imported goods;
• An amount for profit and general expenses equivalent to that usually reflected in sales of goods of the same class or kind from the country of exportation to Mexico;
• The cost of transport, insurance, and associated charges to the place of importation, as referenced in Article 65(I)(d).

These elements must be determined using “objective and quantifiable data.” Article 74 requires that data supporting the cost of materials, processing, and commercial expenses must come from the producer’s actual accounts or direct documentation—not estimates or generalized market data. The use of industry averages or constructed figures is permitted only when actual producer data cannot be obtained and only on the basis SAT finds adequate.

Application and obstacles in practice

Article 74 is cited when: (1) the producer is willing and able to share detailed cost and profit information with the importer and SAT, or (2) the importer and producer are related parties, such as in parent–subsidiary, branch, or intra-group transfers. In unaffiliated-party trade, producer reluctance to share proprietary cost structures means computed value is rarely available.

While Article 74 sets out the computed value formula, it does not define “profit and general expenses,” nor the specific documentation required. In practice, SAT expects detailed accounting records for all cost elements and may corroborate the “usual amount” from industry data, but these documentation and audit trends are administrative practice rather than textually specified in Article 74 itself.

Where the importer cannot obtain producer cost evidence contemporaneously, or if SAT finds the data subjective or incomplete, the computed value claim will be rejected and valuation will proceed to the fall-back method (Article 78). The burden to prove each cost component rests on the importer by text of Article 74.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Article 74, Cámara de Diputados (as amended Nov. 19, 2025)

Mexican customs law requires importers to determine customs value even when goods are imported without a sale for export to Mexico—such as consignments, promotional samples, warranty returns, or donations. In these cases, there is no invoice price or transfer of ownership, so the primary method (transaction value, Ley Aduanera Article 64) does not apply. Instead, importers must apply the alternative valuation methods in the mandatory WTO-Ley Aduanera sequence.

Legal hierarchy: application of alternative methods (Ley Aduanera Articles 71–78) When there is no sale, the importer must apply the secondary methods in strict order: (i) transaction value of identical goods (Article 71), (ii) transaction value of similar goods (Article 72), (iii) deductive value (Article 73), (iv) computed value (Article 74), and (v) the fall-back method (Article 78). The absence of a sale is a textbook trigger for bypassing Article 64 (transaction value) and applying Articles 71–78, as confirmed by both Ley Aduanera text and its Reglamento (Article 110). The importer may not elect to use a constructed price or a notional declared value; the statutory sequence must be followed.

Transaction value of identical or similar goods If identical or similar goods were sold for export to Mexico at about the same time as the non-sale import, the value of those comparator sales is used. Importers must support this with objective, auditable data—typically invoice records from unrelated-party imports of equivalent goods.

Deductive and computed value If no such comparables exist, or if the adjustments cannot be objectively quantified, valuation moves to deductive value (unit sale price in Mexico, less eligible deductions) or computed value (cost of materials, processing, profit, and expenses), again requiring hard documentation from prior resale or cost records.

Fall-back method as last resort If none of the above methods can be reliably applied (e.g., for unique samples, donations, or prototypes), SAT will accept a reasonable value constructed under Article 78, usually by reference to the customs value of similar goods in recent imports. This method still requires objective supporting data and is subject to challenge in audit.

Documentation: Manifestación de Valor and COVE Even for goods with no sale or nominal value, the importer must transmit the manifestación de valor (COVE/MVE) under RGCE Rules 1.9.16/1.9.17, stating the valuation method used, attaching supporting documentation (such as supply agreements, explanation of circumstances), and identifying the statutory basis for the value declared. For non-sale shipments, the importer should meticulously document the objective basis for any comparative or constructed value reported to customs.

SAT audit emphasis Goods imported without sale are a frequent focus of SAT audit scrutiny, especially when importers declare symbolic values (e.g., $1 USD for samples). SAT expects to see contemporaneous evidence justifying the value method selected, and routinely challenges below-market declarations unsupported by comparables or cost records. Failure to follow the hierarchy or to provide objective documentation will result in rejection of value, adjustment under Article 78-A, and possible penalties under Articles 184/185 of the Ley Aduanera.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Articles 64, 71–78, Cámara de Diputados (as amended 19 Nov. 2025) Source: Reglamento de la Ley Aduanera, Article 110 Source: Reglas Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2026, Rules 1.9.16/1.9.17, SAT