Mexico — Sanctions & Embargoes

Mexico does not maintain an autonomous sanctions regime comparable to the United States OFAC or EU restrictive-measures framework. Instead, Mexico's sanctions obligations derive exclusively from its membership in the United Nations and the binding character of UN Security Council resolutions under the UN Charter, which Mexico ratified on November 7, 1945. The constitutional foundation rests on Article 133 of the Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which declares that international treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are the "Ley Suprema de toda la Unión" — the supreme law of the land, equivalent in rank to the Constitution itself and superior to federal statutes.

Primary statutory framework

The executive branch implements UNSC sanctions through trade-control authorities conferred by the Ley de Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade Law). Article 4 of that statute grants the executive power to "regular, restringir o prohibir la exportación, importación, circulación o tránsito de mercancías" — regulate, restrict, or prohibit the export, import, circulation, or transit of goods — and Article 5 assigns the Secretaría de Economía (Ministry of Economy) the responsibility to study, project, establish, and modify non-tariff measures on imports and exports. These powers are exercised in coordination with the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SRE), which has treaty-implementation and foreign-policy competence.

The Embargo Agreement (Acuerdo de Embargo)

Mexico translates individual UNSC resolutions into domestic trade law through the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías para la importación o la exportación a diversos países, entidades y personas, published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF, the official gazette) on December 27, 2020, and effective December 28, 2020. This Embargo Agreement lists, by TIGIE (Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y de Exportación) tariff classification, the goods prohibited for export to or import from designated countries, entities, and individuals pursuant to specific UNSC resolutions. The 2020 Embargo Agreement abrogated an earlier version published November 29 (year not stated in the 2020 text preamble), and has since been amended at least once — on October 11, 2022 — to harmonize tariff headings with revisions to the TIGIE nomenclature.

Article Primero of the Embargo Agreement states its object: "establecer las fracciones arancelarias de las mercancías sobre las cuales se prohíbe su Importación o Exportación a los países, entidades y personas que se indican." Article Segundo defines "Embargo" as "la interrupción total o parcial de las relaciones económicas." Each substantive article (Tercero, Cuarto, and so forth) cites a list of UN Security Council resolutions by number and year and then specifies which TIGIE fractions are prohibited for which target. For example, Article Tercero applies an embargo to the Federal Republic of Somalia under UNSC Resolutions 733 (1992) through 2498 (2019) for goods listed in Annex I(a).

Article Décimo Quinto requires the Secretaría de Economía to review the embargo lists at least once per year and propose to the Comisión de Comercio Exterior (COCEX, the Foreign Trade Commission — an interministerial body comprising SRE, Hacienda, Economía, and other agencies) any exclusions of tariff headings whose embargo no longer applies, or additions of new headings. Article Décimo Sexto clarifies that compliance with the Embargo Agreement does not exempt importers or exporters from other regulatory requirements under applicable law.

Enforcement agencies

The Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT, the tax-administration service) and its customs arm, the Administración General de Aduanas, enforce embargo prohibitions at the border and conduct verifications of import and export declarations. Customs law (Ley Aduanera) Article 176 Fraction II criminalizes the import or export of goods "sin permiso de las autoridades competentes o sin la firma electrónica en el pedimento que demuestre el descargo total o parcial del permiso ... o sin cumplir cualesquiera otras regulaciones o restricciones no arancelarias emitidas conforme a la Ley de Comercio Exterior." Violating an embargo prohibition — exporting or importing goods in breach of the Acuerdo de Embargo — constitutes the federal crime of smuggling (contrabando) under Articles 102(II) and 104(IV) of the Código Fiscal de la Federación (Federal Tax Code), punishable by three to six years' imprisonment.

Other restrictive measures

While Mexico does not impose unilateral economic sanctions, Article 131 of the Constitution grants the executive residual authority to create, increase, decrease, or eliminate tariffs by decree, and to regulate or restrict trade for reasons of national security, public health, or ecological protection under Articles 4(III) and 4(VI) of the Ley de Comercio Exterior. These powers have been invoked for sector-specific import controls (e.g., firearms under the Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos, administered by the Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional) but not for country-based or entity-based sanctions programs independent of the United Nations.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 1, 4, 5 Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020) Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022) Source: Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Art. 133

Mexico enforces merchandise embargoes exclusively against countries, entities, and individuals designated by United Nations Security Council resolutions, as implemented through the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías para la importación o la exportación a diversos países, entidades y personas published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on December 27, 2020 (effective December 28, 2020), as amended October 11, 2022. The Embargo Agreement translates each applicable UNSC resolution into concrete trade prohibitions, specifying by TIGIE (Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y de Exportación) tariff fraction which goods are prohibited for import or export to or from the designated target.

Country-based embargoes

As of the October 2022 amendment, Mexico maintains merchandise embargoes against eleven countries and one category of terrorist-linked persons. The embargoes apply to specific tariff classifications listed in Annex I of the Embargo Agreement, typically covering arms, military equipment, dual-use goods, and related services, though the breadth and scope differ by target.

1. Somalia (Article Tercero): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 733 (1992) through 2498 (2019) on goods listed in Annex I(a). The Somalia embargo, dating to January 23, 1992, is among the oldest, initially covering "all supplies of arms and military equipment" and subsequently modified to extend restrictions on charcoal exports and certain petroleum products.

1. Designated persons and entities associated with ISIS (ISIL/Daesh), Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and related organizations (Article Cuarto): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999) through 2368 (2017) on goods listed in Annex I(b). This is a targeted sanctions program focused on individuals, groups, and entities identified on the UN Consolidated List (formerly the "Al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions List"), not a blanket country embargo. The program applies to persons acting in the name of, under the direction of, or for the benefit of these designated entities.

1. Iraq (Article Quinto): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1483 (2003), 1511 (2003), 1518 (2003), and 1546 (2004) on goods listed in Annex I(c). The embargo is limited to export prohibitions; import from Iraq is not restricted under this article. The scope covers arms, related materiel, and certain dual-use items.

1. Democratic Republic of Congo (Article Sexto): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1493 (2003) through 2293 (2016) on goods listed in Annex I(d). Export-only prohibition covering arms and military equipment destined for non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the DRC, particularly in conflict-affected eastern provinces.

1. Sudan (Article Séptimo): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1556 (2004), 1591 (2005), and 1945 (2010) on goods listed in Annex I(e). Export-only prohibition. The embargo originally targeted arms and military equipment destined for non-governmental entities in Darfur (northern, southern, and western Darfur states) and has been modified over time to reflect changing conflict dynamics.

1. North Korea (DPRK) (Article Octavo): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1695 (2006) through 2397 (2017) on goods listed in Annex I(f). Both import and export are prohibited — the most comprehensive country embargo in the Mexican framework. The prohibition covers entire chapters, headings, subheadings, and fractions of the TIGIE. Article Octavo expressly notes that when doubt exists regarding the scope of Resolution 2397 (2017), particularly the sectoral measures in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7, the interested party may submit a consultation under Article Décimo Cuarto, which the Secretaría de Economía will forward to the Mexican Mission to the UN for clarification by the Security Council.

1. Iran (Article Noveno): Embargo under UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015) and IAEA circulars INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 on goods listed in Annex I(g). Both import and export are prohibited. The embargo implements the nuclear-related trade restrictions in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework, focused on dual-use nuclear technology, missile-related items, and arms. The reference to IAEA circulars incorporates the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) trigger lists and dual-use lists directly into Mexican law.

1. Libya (Article Décimo): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1970 (2011), 2009 (2011), 2040 (2012), 2095 (2013), and 2174 (2014) on goods listed in Annex I(h). Export-only prohibition covering arms and related materiel. The embargo was imposed on February 26, 2011, during the Libyan civil conflict and has been "attenuated, amended, or lifted" in part by subsequent resolutions, though the core arms-embargo obligation remains.

1. Lebanon (Article Décimo Primero): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 1701 (2006), 1832 (2008), and 1884 (2009) on goods listed in Annex I(i). Export-only prohibition covering arms and related materiel. The embargo implements Security Council measures adopted August 11, 2006, following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Article Décimo Primero uniquely specifies that the prohibition applies to goods "sean originarias o no de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" — whether or not they originate in Mexico — clarifying that the embargo applies to re-exports and transshipments of third-country origin as well.

1. Central African Republic (Article Décimo Segundo): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 2127 (2013) through 2536 (2020) on goods listed in Annex I(j). Export-only prohibition covering arms, military equipment, and related materiel.

1. Yemen — designated individuals (Article Décimo Tercero): Embargo under UNSC Resolutions 2140 (2014), 2216 (2015), and 2511 (2020) on goods listed in Annex I(k). This is a targeted sanctions program, not a blanket country embargo. It applies to five named individuals — Ali Abdullah Saleh, Abdullah Yahya Al-Hakim, Abd Al-Khaliq Al-Huthi, Abdulmalik Al-Houthi, and Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh — plus "persons acting in their name or under their direction in the Republic of Yemen, or for the benefit of any of them," and entities designated by the UNSC Yemen Sanctions Committee. It does not prohibit all trade with Yemen; only transactions involving the designated persons or entities are restricted.

Scope of prohibited goods

The goods subject to embargo are listed in Annex I by TIGIE tariff fraction for each target. Typical coverage includes:

• Chapter 93 (arms, ammunition, and parts thereof);
• Chapter 88 (aircraft, spacecraft, and parts) and Chapter 89 (ships and floating structures) when military or dual-use;
• Dual-use items from Chapters 84, 85, 90 (machinery, electrical equipment, optical instruments) that may have military or WMD-related applications;
• Certain raw materials and chemicals (Chapters 25–29, 38) with potential military or WMD application;
• Luxury goods in the case of North Korea (textiles, vehicles, jewelry, certain consumer electronics).

For the DPRK and Iran embargoes (Articles Octavo and Noveno), Annex I lists entire chapters and broadly worded headings, reflecting the comprehensive nature of those sanctions regimes. Practitioners must consult Annex I for the precise tariff fractions applicable to each target.

No autonomous sanctions; no financial blocking

The Embargo Agreement implements only merchandise trade restrictions derived from UNSC resolutions. Mexico does not maintain:

• Unilateral or autonomous sanctions programs (such as those imposed by the United States under OFAC or by the European Union);
• Asset-freezing or blocking measures against designated persons or entities (Mexico has no analogue to the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List or EU restrictive measures freezing funds);
• Secondary sanctions that penalize third parties for trading with sanctioned countries.

Mexican exporters, importers, and financial institutions must independently assess their exposure to U.S., EU, and UK sanctions when engaging in trade or finance involving any of the countries listed above — or other countries subject to Western sanctions but not to UNSC measures (e.g., Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Belarus). Compliance with the Embargo Agreement does not exempt a Mexican entity from liability under OFAC, EU, or OFSI sanctions if the transaction touches U.S., EU, or UK jurisdiction through dollar clearing, correspondent banking, or the involvement of U.S./EU/UK persons or technology.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020) Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022)

When the scope of a United Nations Security Council–derived embargo is ambiguous or an exporter or importer requires official confirmation that a particular tariff fraction, transaction, or party falls within or outside the prohibitions of the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (Embargo Agreement), Article Décimo Cuarto of the Embargo Agreement establishes a formal consultation mechanism administered by the Dirección General de Facilitación Comercial y de Comercio Exterior (DGFCCE), a unit within the Subsecretaría de Industria, Comercio y Competitividad of the Secretaría de Economía.

Consultation procedure under Article Décimo Cuarto

The consultation is submitted through the administrative procedure designated "Consultas a las unidades administrativas de la Secretaría de Economía, excepto en materia de inversión extranjera" with homoclave SE-00-003. The interested party must present a written request addressed to the DGFCCE. Article Décimo Cuarto specifies that the DGFCCE office is located at Avenida Insurgentes Sur in Mexico City (the Embargo Agreement does not provide a complete street address or postal code; practitioners should consult the Secretaría's official website or registry for the current physical address and electronic-submission portal for form SE-00-003).

The statute does not specify a mandatory response deadline for the Secretaría, nor does it prescribe the form of the response (binding ruling, non-binding guidance, referral to an inter-ministerial committee). In practice, the DGFCCE coordinates with the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE), which holds primary competence over foreign-policy implementation and treaty interpretation under the Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal.

Referral to the United Nations for UNSC resolution interpretation

Article Octavo of the Embargo Agreement, which implements the comprehensive embargo against North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) under UNSC Resolutions 1695 (2006) through 2397 (2017), contains a unique procedural note for the DPRK embargo. The article states that "cuando exista duda en relación con el alcance de la Resolución 2397 (2017)" — when doubt exists regarding the scope of Resolution 2397, particularly the sectoral measures described in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 (which prohibit imports of food and agricultural products, machinery, electrical equipment, earth and stone, wood, and vessels or aircraft from the DPRK, and exports of refined petroleum, crude oil, and industrial machinery to the DPRK) — the interested party may present a consultation under Article Décimo Cuarto, and the Secretaría de Economía will forward the question to the Mexican Mission to the United Nations for clarification by the UN Security Council or its DPRK Sanctions Committee (the 1718 Committee).

This escalation pathway reflects the complexity of the DPRK sanctions regime, which has been amended more than a dozen times since 2006 and imposes both tariff-based prohibitions and commodity-ceiling constraints that are not always self-executing in domestic tariff nomenclature. No analogous provision exists in the Embargo Agreement for other targets (Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc.), suggesting that for those regimes the DGFCCE is expected to interpret the UNSC resolution text directly or in coordination with SRE without formal referral to New York.

No general exemption or licensing mechanism

The Embargo Agreement does not establish a general licence, specific licence, or humanitarian-exemption regime comparable to those administered by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or the European Commission. UNSC Resolution 2664, adopted December 9, 2022, created a humanitarian carve-out to the asset-freeze measure across all UN sanctions regimes to enable the flow of humanitarian assistance and activities supporting basic human needs. However, Mexico has not published a domestic implementing regulation translating the UNSCR 2664 carve-out into a permit or exemption procedure under the Embargo Agreement as of the most recent amendment (October 11, 2022).

Consequently, if a transaction involves goods listed in Annex I of the Embargo Agreement and is destined for or originates from an embargoed country or designated person, the transaction is categorically prohibited. There is no published procedure under the Embargo Agreement or the Ley de Comercio Exterior to apply for an exemption or waiver for humanitarian shipments, medical supplies, or other transactions that would be authorized under UNSCR 2664. The only narrow exception in Mexican trade law is found in Article 17 Bis of the Ley de Comercio Exterior, which exempts donated goods for disaster relief or extreme poverty from non-tariff restrictions generally—but that provision applies to non-tariff measures imposed under the Ley de Comercio Exterior as a whole, not specifically to UNSC embargoes, and it does not authorize commercial sales or dual-use-item donations that would otherwise breach an embargo.

Practitioners whose clients seek to export humanitarian goods to an embargoed country (for example, medical equipment to Iran or agricultural products to North Korea) should therefore assume the export is prohibited by default unless and until the Secretaría de Economía issues a clarification confirming that the specific TIGIE fraction is excluded from Annex I or that the UNSC resolution itself contains a humanitarian exception applicable to that good. The consultation procedure under Article Décimo Cuarto is the only formal channel to request such a determination.

Annual review and modification by COCEX

Article Décimo Quinto of the Embargo Agreement requires the Secretaría de Economía to review the embargo lists at least once per year and to propose to the Comisión de Comercio Exterior (COCEX) any additions or deletions of tariff headings whose embargo status has changed due to amendments or terminations of UNSC resolutions. COCEX is an interministerial body chaired by the Secretario de Economía and comprising the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, and other federal agencies with foreign-trade or foreign-policy competence, established under Article 5 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior and governed by Articles 7–9 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior.

The annual-review obligation ensures that Mexico's domestic tariff prohibitions track the current state of UNSC sanctions. In practice, COCEX reviews and the Secretaría publishes amendments in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) as needed—most recently on October 11, 2022, when the Embargo Agreement was modified to harmonize TIGIE fractions with the 2022 tariff-nomenclature revisions. Exporters and importers should monitor the DOF and the Secretaría de Economía's official publications portal for amendments to Annex I, particularly when a UNSC resolution is adopted, amended, or terminated, or when the Mexican TIGIE undergoes structural revision.

No published exemption procedure for UNSCR 2664 humanitarian carve-out

Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-01.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020), Arts. Décimo Cuarto, Décimo Quinto Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022) Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 17 Bis Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 7–9

Violation of the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías — importing or exporting goods listed in Annex I to or from a prohibited target — constitutes the federal crime of contrabando (smuggling) under the Código Fiscal de la Federación (Federal Tax Code) and triggers administrative customs sanctions under the Ley Aduanera (Customs Law). The penalty structure depends on whether the violation involves goods whose traffic has been prohibited by executive decree (which includes all UN embargo targets listed in the Embargo Agreement) or the value of the omitted merchandise.

## Criminal liability — contrabando under the Código Fiscal de la Federación

Article 102 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación defines contrabando as introducing goods into Mexico or extracting goods from Mexico: (I) omitting payment in whole or in part of the customs duties or countervailing duties that must be paid; (II) without the permission of the competent authority when such permission is necessary; or (III) when the import or export of the goods is prohibited. Violating the Embargo Agreement falls squarely within Article 102(III) — exporting or importing goods whose traffic is prohibited — because the Embargo Agreement, published under the authority of the Ley de Comercio Exterior, prohibits the export or import of specified tariff fractions to or from the designated countries and persons.

Article 104 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación specifies three tiers of prison sanctions for contrabando:

• Fraction I: Three months to five years in prison when the value of the goods does not exceed $188,280.00 pesos (an amount that is periodically updated by the Servicio de Administración Tributaria and published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación).

• Fraction II: Three to nine years in prison when the value of the goods exceeds $188,280.00 pesos.

• Fraction III: Three to nine years in prison, regardless of the value of the goods, when the contrabando involves "mercancías cuyo tráfico haya sido prohibido por el Ejecutivo Federal en ejercicio de las facultades señaladas por el segundo párrafo del artículo 131 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" — goods whose traffic has been prohibited by the Federal Executive in exercise of the powers conferred by the second paragraph of Article 131 of the Constitution. The Embargo Agreement is issued under Article 4 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior, which delegates to the executive the power to regulate, restrict, or prohibit imports and exports, and is understood to constitute a categorical prohibition within the meaning of Article 104(III). Consequently, any embargo violation — regardless of whether the shipment is a single laptop to North Korea or a container of dual-use machinery to Iran — is punishable by three to nine years in prison under Fraction III.

The sanction also includes a fine ranging from 30% to 60% of the value of the smuggled goods (the percentage varies depending on whether the infraction is classified under Fraction I, II, or III and whether aggravating circumstances exist). Article 104 does not exempt humanitarian goods, low-value personal shipments, or donated items; the categorical prohibition applies to all goods listed in Annex I of the Embargo Agreement destined for or originating from the embargoed target.

Article 105 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación lists conduct "equiparable a contrabando" (equivalent to smuggling) that is punished with the same penalties. Relevant provisions for embargo enforcement include Fraction II, which treats as smuggling the act of possessing, storing, transporting, or conducting commerce with goods introduced into Mexico in violation of the Embargo Agreement — meaning that even post-import possession or domestic resale of embargoed goods can trigger criminal liability if the importer lacked the necessary authorization or if the import was categorically prohibited.

## Administrative customs sanctions — Ley Aduanera Article 176

Article 176 of the Ley Aduanera establishes parallel administrative infractions for customs violations. Fraction II makes it an infraction subject to administrative sanction when goods are introduced into or extracted from the territory "sin permiso de las autoridades competentes o sin la firma electrónica en el pedimento que demuestre el descargo total o parcial del permiso … o sin cumplir cualesquiera otras regulaciones o restricciones no arancelarias emitidas conforme a la Ley de Comercio Exterior" — without the permission of the competent authorities, or without complying with any other non-tariff regulations or restrictions issued under the Ley de Comercio Exterior.

The Embargo Agreement is a "restricción no arancelaria" issued under the Ley de Comercio Exterior. Importing or exporting embargoed goods without authorization therefore violates Article 176(II) and triggers the administrative sanctions set forth in Article 178 of the Ley Aduanera, which include:

• Seizure of the merchandise (embargo precautorio) pending resolution of the administrative proceeding;
• Forfeiture to the federal treasury if the goods fall within one of the categories listed in Article 183, which includes goods whose import or export is prohibited (Fraction III);
• A fine of 70% to 100% of the value of the goods, or if the value cannot be determined, a fine ranging from $27,930.00 to $39,910.00 pesos (amounts updated annually by indexation under Article 5 of the Ley Aduanera);
• Potential suspension or cancellation of the importer's or exporter's customs registration (padrón de importadores or padrón de exportadores) or the customs broker's license (patente de agente aduanal), depending on the severity and recurrence of the infraction.

The administrative proceeding is conducted by the Administración General de Aduanas of the Servicio de Administración Tributaria under the Procedimiento Administrativo en Materia Aduanera (PAMA) established in Articles 150–158 of the Ley Aduanera. The importer or exporter has ten business days from notification of the preliminary inspection report (acta de inicio) to submit a defense. The customs authority must issue a final resolution within four months. Forfeiture of the goods is immediate upon a final adverse resolution, and the goods are transferred to the Servicio de Administración y Enajenación de Bienes (SAE) for disposal, destruction, or auction.

## Interaction between criminal and administrative liability

Criminal and administrative proceedings are independent and concurrent. Under Article 101 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación, no substitution, commutation, conditional suspension, or early release is available for persons sentenced for contrabando under Article 104(II) or (III) — meaning that a conviction for embargo smuggling under Fraction III (three to nine years) cannot benefit from pretrial diversion, probation, or parole. The convicted person must serve the full prison term minus standard time-reduction credits for good behavior.

Payment of the administrative fine, forfeiture of the goods, or settlement of the customs debt does not extinguish criminal liability. Article 92 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación permits the Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público to refrain from filing a criminal complaint (querella) if the taxpayer voluntarily pays the omitted duties, fines, and interest before the customs authority initiates an audit or files the complaint, but this exception applies to duty-evasion smuggling (Article 102(I)) — omitting payment of customs duties on lawful goods. It does not apply to prohibited-goods smuggling (Article 102(III)), because no amount of payment can cure the import or export of goods whose traffic is categorically banned. Consequently, there is no administrative settlement or voluntary-disclosure pathway to avoid criminal prosecution for violating the Embargo Agreement.

## Statute of limitations and procedural defenses

The criminal statute of limitations for contrabando is governed by Article 105 of the Código Penal Federal (Federal Criminal Code) and runs for a period equal to the average of the maximum and minimum prison terms set forth in Article 104 of the Código Fiscal, but in no case less than three years. For embargo smuggling under Article 104(III) (three to nine years), the limitations period is six years from the date of the offense. The period is tolled (suspended) if criminal proceedings are initiated.

Common procedural defenses include:

• Challenge to the classification of the goods in Annex I: If the exporter or importer can demonstrate that the TIGIE tariff fraction under which the goods were classified does not appear in the relevant Annex I list for the target country, the prohibition does not apply.
• Exemption or authorization: If the transaction qualifies under a specific exception built into the cited UNSC resolution (for example, certain humanitarian medical equipment under specified DPRK or Iran exemptions), and the party obtained advance written confirmation from the Secretaría de Economía under the Article Décimo Cuarto consultation procedure, the prohibition may not apply. However, no such exemptions have been published in the Embargo Agreement, and practitioners should assume that no general humanitarian exemption exists under Mexican law as of 2026-06-01.
• Lack of knowledge or intent: Article 15 of the Código Penal Federal requires that criminal liability attach only when the accused acted with intent (dolo) or culpable negligence. Demonstrating that the exporter or importer had no knowledge that the goods were destined for an embargoed country or person, and exercised reasonable due diligence in customer screening, may constitute a defense — though in practice, prosecutors treat the act of export or import itself as presumptive evidence of knowledge when the goods match an Annex I description and the destination is a listed target.

## Enforcement priorities and compliance practice

The Administración General de Aduanas and the Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (Financial Intelligence Unit, UIF) coordinate enforcement with the Fiscalía General de la República (federal prosecutor's office). Historically, enforcement has focused on high-value dual-use technology exports to North Korea and Iran, arms and military equipment to any embargoed target, and transshipment through Mexico of goods destined for embargoed countries but declared for a non-embargoed third country. Customs inspections at Mexico City (MEX), Guadalajara (GDL), Monterrey (MTY), Manzanillo (ZLO), Veracruz (VER), and Nuevo Laredo (NLD) airports and seaports have the highest interdiction rates for dual-use and OFAC-sensitive shipments.

Because Mexico does not maintain an autonomous sanctions regime and does not block financial transactions or freeze assets (only merchandise embargoes), Mexican exporters, importers, and financial institutions must independently assess their exposure to U.S. OFAC, EU, and UK OFSI sanctions for any transaction that touches dollar clearing, correspondent banking, U.S. persons, EU persons, or UK persons — even when the transaction complies with the Mexican Embargo Agreement. A shipment that is lawful under Mexican law (because it is not listed in Annex I or because the destination is not a UN-embargoed country) may still trigger secondary sanctions under U.S. or EU law if the goods, parties, or financial flows involve U.S. or EU nexus. Conversely, a transaction that violates the Embargo Agreement will almost certainly also violate OFAC, EU, and UK sanctions, exposing the Mexican party to both Mexican criminal prosecution and foreign civil or criminal enforcement.

Source: Código Fiscal de la Federación, Arts. 92, 101, 102, 104, 105 Source: Ley Aduanera, Arts. 176, 178, 183 Source: Código Penal Federal, Art. 105 (statute of limitations)

Mexico enforces only United Nations Security Council–derived embargoes through the Acuerdo de Embargo; it does not maintain autonomous sanctions programs comparable to those administered by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the European Union, or the United Kingdom Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI). A transaction that complies with the Embargo Agreement — because the destination country, goods, or parties are not listed in Annex I — may nonetheless violate U.S., EU, or UK sanctions, exposing the Mexican exporter, importer, or financial institution to secondary sanctions (civil or criminal penalties imposed by the United States, EU, or UK for conduct that occurs wholly outside those jurisdictions but touches U.S., EU, or UK nexus through dollar clearing, correspondent banking, use of U.S. or EU technology, or involvement of U.S. or EU persons).

Conversely, a transaction that would breach U.S. or EU sanctions may be prohibited under Mexican law if complying with the foreign sanction would violate Mexico's Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional (Law for the Protection of Trade and Investment from Foreign Norms that Contravene International Law), enacted October 23, 1996. This creates a legal conflict: Mexican law forbids compliance with extraterritorial foreign sanctions that contravene international law, while U.S. and EU sanctions regimes impose liability on non-U.S./non-EU persons for conduct outside U.S. or EU territory when certain jurisdictional triggers are met. Mexican exporters, importers, and financial institutions must therefore assess both Mexican embargo prohibitions and exposure to U.S., EU, and UK sanctions when the transaction involves:

• Countries or sectors subject to U.S. comprehensive or sectoral sanctions but not subject to UNSC embargoes (e.g., Russia, Venezuela, Cuba beyond the UNSC framework, Syria, Belarus, Nicaragua, certain Myanmar entities);
• Persons or entities on the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), the EU consolidated list of persons, groups, and entities subject to EU financial sanctions, or the UK consolidated list, even when those persons are not on the UN Consolidated List;
• Goods, technology, or software subject to U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) jurisdiction or U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) jurisdiction, including non-U.S.-origin items that incorporate more than the de minimis threshold of U.S.-origin content or are the direct product of U.S. technology;
• Dollar-denominated transactions cleared through U.S. correspondent banks or processed by U.S. financial institutions;
• Transactions involving U.S. persons (including U.S. subsidiaries of Mexican companies, U.S. employees of Mexican companies, or U.S. dual nationals), EU persons, or UK persons;
• Shipments transiting U.S., EU, or UK territory or territorial waters;
• Goods or services destined for end users or end uses subject to U.S., EU, or UK sanctions (e.g., Russian military end users under E.O. 14024, Iranian petroleum-sector entities under OFAC's Iran sanctions, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA under E.O. 13850).

## U.S. secondary-sanctions risk — extraterritorial reach of OFAC programs

The United States asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain sanctions programs under Executive Orders issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA, 50 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.). Secondary sanctions are provisions within U.S. sanctions programs that impose liability on non-U.S. persons — including Mexican companies and individuals — for conduct that occurs outside the United States but that the United States deems to facilitate sanctioned activity or involve sanctioned parties.

Key U.S. sanctions programs with secondary-sanctions provisions affecting Mexican exporters and importers include:

• Iran sanctions (E.O. 13224 as amended by E.O. 13886, E.O. 13382, E.O. 13902, and the Iran Sanctions Act). Under 31 C.F.R. § 560.203 and related provisions, OFAC prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in nearly all transactions with Iran, and certain provisions impose liability on non-U.S. persons who engage in "significant transactions" with Iranian persons, including petroleum sales, transactions with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or transactions with SDN-listed Iranian entities. OFAC may impose blocking sanctions (adding the non-U.S. person to the SDN List) or menu-based sanctions (denial of export privileges, denial of U.S. visas, prohibition on U.S. financial institutions making loans to the sanctioned person) on non-U.S. persons who engage in such transactions.

• Russia / Ukraine-related sanctions (E.O. 14024, E.O. 14068, E.O. 14114). Section 11 of E.O. 14024, issued February 21, 2021, and amended multiple times through 2024, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose blocking sanctions on any foreign person (including Mexican persons) determined to operate in certain sectors of the Russian economy (defense, energy, financial services, technology), to have engaged in transactions involving Russian state-owned enterprises, or to have facilitated sanctions evasion. OFAC has designated hundreds of non-Russian entities — including companies in China, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Mexico — for facilitating the export of dual-use items to Russia or enabling Russian access to the international financial system. The SDN List as of May 2026 includes multiple Mexican individuals and entities designated under E.O. 14059 (narcotics trafficking) and E.O. 13224 as amended (terrorism / transnational crime), some with "Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886" annotations, meaning that any non-U.S. person who engages in a transaction with that SDN faces potential secondary-sanctions liability even if the transaction occurs wholly outside the United States and does not involve U.S. persons or U.S.-origin goods.

• Venezuela sanctions (E.O. 13850, E.O. 13884, E.O. 13902). OFAC has designated numerous Venezuelan government officials, entities, and oil-sector companies, and has asserted jurisdiction over non-U.S. persons who provide material support to designated persons or operate in the Venezuelan petroleum, gold, or defense sectors.

• Cuba sanctions (Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515). The United States maintains a comprehensive embargo on Cuba under TWEA. While the Cuban embargo is not extraterritorial in its core prohibitions (it applies only to U.S. persons and transactions involving U.S.-origin goods or technology), Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq.) authorizes U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal courts against any person — including non-U.S. persons — who "traffics" in that confiscated property (22 U.S.C. § 6082). Title III was suspended by successive U.S. administrations from 1996 through May 2, 2019, when President Trump allowed the suspension to lapse. As a result, Mexican companies that operate joint ventures in Cuba using property formerly owned by U.S. nationals may be sued in U.S. courts, even if the Mexican company has no presence in the United States. The plaintiff may seek treble damages (three times the value of the property plus interest).

Secondary-sanctions risk triggers for Mexican exporters and importers:

1. Dollar clearing. Most international trade is invoiced and settled in U.S. dollars. Dollar-denominated payments must be cleared through U.S. correspondent banks, which are U.S. persons subject to OFAC jurisdiction. If the payment involves a sanctioned party (an SDN, a blocked country, or a prohibited transaction), the U.S. correspondent bank will block or reject the payment and file a report with OFAC. The Mexican exporter or importer may then be designated as an SDN or subjected to civil monetary penalties.

1. U.S.-origin content. Goods or technology that incorporate more than the de minimis threshold of U.S.-origin content (currently 25% by value for most destinations, 10% for Iran and North Korea, 0% for certain Russian military end users under the foreign direct product rule in 15 C.F.R. § 744.6) are subject to EAR jurisdiction. Exporting such goods from Mexico to a sanctioned destination without a U.S. export license violates the EAR and may trigger designation under E.O. 13382 (WMD proliferation), E.O. 13224 (terrorism), or E.O. 14024 (Russia).

1. Involvement of U.S. persons. If a Mexican company employs U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents, or if a U.S. parent company owns 50% or more of the Mexican subsidiary, OFAC treats any transaction facilitated by the U.S. person or the majority-U.S.-owned subsidiary as a U.S.-person transaction subject to OFAC jurisdiction, even if the transaction occurs wholly in Mexico and the goods are of non-U.S. origin.

1. Transshipment through the United States. Goods exported from Mexico to a third country that transit U.S. territory (air or sea transshipment through U.S. ports) are subject to U.S. export-control and sanctions jurisdiction during the transit.

## EU Blocking Statute and the prohibition on complying with extraterritorial U.S. sanctions

The European Union enacted Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the EU Blocking Statute) on November 22, 1996, to protect EU persons from the extraterritorial application of third-country sanctions. The Annex to the Blocking Statute, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 (effective August 7, 2018), lists certain U.S. sanctions laws whose extraterritorial provisions the EU does not recognize, including the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act) and the U.S. Iran sanctions re-imposed after the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018.

Article 5 of the Blocking Statute prohibits EU persons — including EU subsidiaries of Mexican companies and EU nationals employed by Mexican companies — from complying, directly or indirectly, with any requirement or prohibition arising from the listed extraterritorial laws. Article 6 entitles EU persons to recover damages caused by the application of the listed extraterritorial laws. Article 9 requires each EU Member State to impose effective, proportional, and dissuasive sanctions for breaches of the Blocking Statute, though enforcement varies widely (some Member States impose criminal liability, others administrative fines, and some have not enforced the Blocking Statute at all). The European Commission may grant an exemption under Article 5, second paragraph, if compliance with the Blocking Statute would seriously damage the EU person's interests or the interests of the EU, but such exemptions are rarely granted.

Mexican exporters or importers with EU operations (EU subsidiaries, EU-located warehouses, EU employees) face a double-bind: complying with U.S. sanctions may violate the EU Blocking Statute and trigger EU Member State enforcement, while violating U.S. sanctions may trigger OFAC designation and loss of access to the U.S. market and the dollar financial system.

## Mexico's anti-extraterritoriality law — Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional

Mexico enacted its own blocking statute on October 23, 1996 — the Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional (Law for the Protection of Trade and Investment from Foreign Norms that Contravene International Law). The statute was published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on October 23, 1996, and was amended on April 20, 2012.

Article 1 of the statute prohibits any person subject to Mexican jurisdiction from performing acts that affect trade or investment when those acts are a consequence of the extraterritorial effects of foreign laws — specifically foreign laws "whose objectives are contrary to international law or the treaties to which Mexico is a party." The statute does not name specific foreign laws in the way the EU Blocking Statute's Annex does, but it is understood to target the U.S. Helms-Burton Act (Cuban embargo extraterritorial provisions) and analogous U.S. extraterritorial sanctions.

Article 2 prohibits any person subject to Article 1 from providing information requested by foreign courts or authorities on the basis of the foreign extraterritorial laws referenced in Article 1. Article 3 prohibits Mexican courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments or arbitral awards based on such extraterritorial laws. Article 4 grants Mexican persons the right to file suit in Mexican federal courts to recover indemnification for damages (including legal costs) from any person who obtains an economic benefit derived from a judgment or arbitral award issued under the extraterritorial foreign law.

Article 9, as amended in 2012, authorizes the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to impose administrative fines for violations:

• Up to 100,000 days of minimum wage for violating Article 1 (performing acts required by the extraterritorial foreign law);
• Up to 50,000 days of minimum wage for violating Article 2 (providing information to foreign authorities);
• Up to 30,000 days of minimum wage for violating Article 3 (enforcing a foreign judgment based on the extraterritorial law).

The fines are calibrated to the circumstances of the violation and the degree to which trade or investment is affected. Article 7 directs the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and the Secretaría de Economía to advise persons affected by the application of the extraterritorial foreign laws.

## Practical compliance strategy — dual-track assessment

Because compliance with U.S. or EU sanctions may violate Mexico's anti-extraterritoriality law (and vice versa), Mexican exporters, importers, and financial institutions must conduct a dual-track sanctions assessment for any cross-border transaction:

Track 1: Mexico Embargo Agreement compliance. Screen the transaction against Annex I of the Embargo Agreement. If the goods, destination, or party are listed, the transaction is prohibited under Mexican law. No amount of U.S. or EU sanctions compliance will cure a violation of the Embargo Agreement.

Track 2: U.S., EU, and UK sanctions exposure. Even if the transaction is lawful under the Embargo Agreement, assess:

• Is the destination country, end user, end use, or party subject to U.S. OFAC sanctions (SDN List, sectoral sanctions, comprehensive country embargoes)?
• Does the transaction involve dollar clearing, U.S.-origin goods or technology, U.S. persons, or transit through U.S. territory?
• Does the transaction involve EU persons (including EU subsidiaries or EU employees of the Mexican company) or UK persons?
• Is the transaction subject to the EU Blocking Statute (i.e., does complying with U.S. sanctions require the Mexican or EU person to terminate a lawful contract with an Iranian or Cuban counterparty)?
• Is the transaction subject to Mexico's anti-extraterritoriality law (i.e., would complying with U.S. Helms-Burton Act provisions by refusing to deal with a Cuban entity violate Article 1)?

If the transaction triggers secondary-sanctions exposure under OFAC but is lawful under the Embargo Agreement, the Mexican exporter or importer must decide whether to:

1. Comply with U.S. sanctions and risk administrative fines under Mexico's Ley de Protección (if the transaction involves Cuban confiscated property or another covered extraterritorial-law scenario) or enforcement under the EU Blocking Statute (if EU persons are involved);
2. Proceed with the transaction and risk OFAC designation, civil monetary penalties, loss of access to U.S. correspondent banking, and possible criminal prosecution if the transaction involves U.S. persons or U.S.-origin goods; or
3. Seek legal advice and, where possible, restructure the transaction to minimize U.S. nexus (avoid dollar clearing by using euro, yuan, or peso settlement; avoid U.S.-origin goods; avoid involvement of U.S. persons; avoid U.S. transit).

In practice, U.S. sanctions enforcement has been far more aggressive than enforcement of Mexico's anti-extraterritoriality law or the EU Blocking Statute. OFAC designates hundreds of non-U.S. persons per year and imposes civil penalties in the tens of millions of dollars. Mexico's Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores has not publicly reported enforcement actions under the Ley de Protección since its enactment, though the statute remains in force. The EU Blocking Statute likewise saw minimal enforcement until the 2018 re-imposition of U.S. Iran sanctions, and even then enforcement has been limited to a small number of Member State administrative actions.

Consequently, when forced to choose, most Mexican exporters and financial institutions have prioritized compliance with U.S. OFAC sanctions over compliance with Mexico's anti-extraterritoriality law or the EU Blocking Statute — accepting the risk of theoretical Mexican or EU enforcement in order to preserve access to the U.S. market and the dollar financial system. This de facto prioritization does not eliminate the legal obligation under Mexican law; it reflects a risk-weighted commercial judgment about the relative likelihood and severity of enforcement.

Source: Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (EU Blocking Statute) Source: Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional (DOF 23-Oct-1996) Source: OFAC Sanctions Programs and Country Information

Merchandise subject to embargo prohibitions under Mexico’s Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías must be declared on entry or exit via the electronic customs declaration (pedimento) system. The customs authority responsible for enforcement is the Administración General de Aduanas, part of the Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT). Mexico implements embargo checks both at the time of import/export clearance and in post-entry/post-exit audits, applying both automated and manual systems.

Declaration requirements:

• The exporter or importer must indicate the full tariff classification for each good using the TIGIE (Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y de Exportación) number. If a declared TIGIE fraction appears in Annex I of the Embargo Agreement, the goods are immediately subject to embargo.
• Embargoed goods require the submission of a valid permit from the Secretaría de Economía. However, for goods strictly prohibited under the Embargo Agreement—i.e., those with no applicable exemption or licence—the system will block transmission of the pedimento for those TIGIE lines.
• The customs system cross-references embargoed tariff fractions against entries in the Registros de Regulaciones y Restricciones No Arancelarias (Register of Non-Tariff Regulations and Restrictions), which is coded into the Automated Customs System (Ventanilla Digital). If a match or a missing permit is detected, the system flags the shipment for hold or rejection.

Border enforcement procedures:

• Shipments flagged as potentially embargoed are automatically routed to the “red channel” for physical inspection under the random/targeted inspection system of Article 43 of the Ley Aduanera.
• The customs inspector verifies the actual goods against the declared tariff fraction and, if necessary, requests supporting documents from the importer/exporter, including invoices, origin documentation, and any permits.
• If embargoed goods are found without authorization, customs will seize the shipment, and a Procedimiento Administrativo en Materia Aduanera (PAMA) is initiated under Articles 150–158 of the Ley Aduanera. Importers/exporters have the right to present evidence within ten business days.
• For prohibited shipments, immediate embargo precautorio (precautionary seizure) applies. Post-seizure, the goods are transferred to the Servicio de Administración y Enajenación de Bienes (SAE) for destruction or disposal per Article 183(III) of the Ley Aduanera.
• Customs may refer suspected criminal violations to the Ministerio Público Federal for prosecution under Código Fiscal de la Federación Article 104(III).

Post-entry audit/enforcement:

• Even after release, customs may audit entries through the revisión en origen system or through post-entry audits (auditorías de comercio exterior). Discovery of undeclared embargoed goods triggers both administrative and criminal sanctions, irrespective of prior clearance.

Practical risk:

• Embargoed goods are overwhelmingly intercepted at shipment clearance, but practitioners should not rely on system “pass” as definitive: post-audit risk remains for misclassification or documentation fraud.

Material update: The Embargo Agreement was materially amended by a decree published in the DOF on October 11, 2022, to harmonize and update TIGIE tariff codes and introduce NICO identifiers in the Annexes. Trade compliance checks now require reference both to the original agreement and to the 2022 amendment for current code coverage. Practitioners must ensure consultation of all updated embargo lists as published in the DOF.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Arts. 43, 150–158, 183 Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020) Source: Acuerdo que modifica al diverso que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 11-Oct-2022)

Mexican customs enforcement of embargo and sanctions-related violations relies on the embargo precautorio (precautionary seizure) procedure set out in the Ley Aduanera. This remains the primary administrative tool to detain, forfeit, and dispose of goods that breach non-tariff restrictions—including those arising under the Embargo Agreement implementing UN Security Council measures in Mexico.

2025–2026 Legal Reform — Expanded Causes and Procedural Changes

A material update occurred with the reform decree published 19 November 2025 (effective 1 January 2026):

• New cause for embargo precautorio (Art. 151): The scope now expressly includes noncompliance with commercial information NOMs (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas), in addition to previously listed causes such as omitting required non-tariff restrictions. This means importers and exporters can face embargo precautorio if commercial labeling or information standards are breached, not just when UN embargoes or other non-tariff measures are at issue.
• Procedural changes (Art. 152 et seq.): The customs authority can now suspend the four-month resolution deadline in cases of force majeure, and may issue requests for additional information when carrying out embargo precautionary acts is impossible immediately.

Triggering the Embargo Precautorio

Article 151 continues to allow embargo precautorio for, among other things:

• Fraction II: "Cuando la introducción o extracción de mercancías se efectúe omitiendo el cumplimiento de regulaciones o restricciones no arancelarias emitidas en los términos de la Ley de Comercio Exterior." (When import or export is performed without fulfilling non-tariff regulations or restrictions issued under the Foreign Trade Law.) All sanctions compliance cases, including violations of the Acuerdo de Embargo, remain covered by this trigger, now joined by the new NOMs cause.

Administrative Procedure and Deadlines

Upon detection of a presumptive violation, customs seizes the goods and initiates the Procedimiento Administrativo en Materia Aduanera (PAMA) (Arts. 150–158, with deadlines and evidence windows unchanged except for the new suspension/extension clauses). Article 152 provides the importer/exporter with ten business days to present evidence and arguments from notification of the seizure acta. If the party does not respond, Article 103, fraction III deems the goods "abandoned in favor of the federal treasury." Article 183, fraction III empowers authorities to transfer prohibited goods to the disposition agency (INDEP, previously SAE) for auction or destruction.

Guarantee Substitution Exception

Article 154 still allows substitution of the embargo precautorio with a financial guarantee (fianza), except for goods whose trade is expressly prohibited by law—such as those in Annex I of the current Embargo Agreement. For those goods, no guarantee is accepted and the goods remain detained pending final forfeiture.

Fines and Loss of Registration

Administrative infractions continue to be defined by Article 176(II): importing, exporting, or attempting to clear goods without fulfilling non-tariff regulations or restrictions from the Foreign Trade Law. Article 178 applies a fine from 70% to 100% of the commercial value, or Article 180 provides fixed fines if value cannot be determined. Recidivism or gravest infractions (Art. 182, fractions V and XV) can lead to permanent loss of the import/export registry.

Concurrent Criminal Liability

Administrative procedure, fines, and forfeiture under customs law do not preclude criminal prosecution under the Código Fiscal de la Federación for embargo or smuggling offenses (Art. 176, last paragraph).

Practitioner Risk

Customs now enforces embargo precautorio at major ports not only for embargo breaches, but also for NOMs noncompliance under Art. 151. For absolute prohibitions, no waiver or guarantee is available. Timely documentation remains essential within the ten-day defense window. The new law broadens the pool of risky transactions that can trigger seizure in embargo/sanctions-adjacent contexts.

Material changes:

• As of Jan. 1, 2026, noncompliance with NOMs is a statutory cause for embargo precautorio;
• Authorities can suspend resolution deadlines in cases of force majeure or uncertainty about the embargo act.

Source: Ley Aduanera, Arts. 103, 150–158, 151, 152, 154, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183 Source: DOF Decree Reforming Ley Aduanera, 19-Nov-2025, effective 1-Jan-2026

As of June 2026, Mexico does not maintain an autonomous financial sanctions regime that requires financial institutions (banks, insurers, or securities firms) to block or freeze assets of parties subject to UN Security Council embargoes or other international sanctions. The obligations imposed on the Mexican financial sector derive primarily from anti–money laundering (AML) and counter–terrorism financing (CFT) statutes, not from a dedicated sanctions/asset-freezing framework as found in the United States (OFAC), the European Union, or the United Kingdom (OFSI).

No SDN-equivalent blocking mechanism in Mexican law

Mexican law does not contain a domestic list of "blocked persons" or "specifically designated nationals" subject to asset freezes based on sanctions. The central embargo instrument—the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías—applies exclusively to the import and export of goods, with enforcement routed through customs and trade authorities (SAT/Administración General de Aduanas). There is no provision in this agreement or in related executive decrees for Mexican financial institutions to freeze, block, or reject funds transfers or financial transactions solely on the basis that the counterparty is listed on a UN Security Council sanctions list or targeted under the Acuerdo de Embargo.

AML/CFT framework and reporting triggers

However, under the primary Mexican AML/CFT statutes—the Ley de Instituciones de Crédito (Credit Institutions Law), Ley para Regular las Actividades de las Sociedades Cooperativas de Ahorro y Préstamo, and the Ley Federal para la Prevención e Identificación de Operaciones con Recursos de Procedencia Ilícita (LFPIORPI, the Federal Law for Prevention and Identification of Operations with Illicit Resources)—banks, securities firms, and designated non-financial businesses must monitor and report transactions that may be related to terrorism or its financing. These statutes implement Mexico's obligations under the Financial Action Task Force (FATF/GAFI) recommendations, which include obligations to identify and report transactions involving persons or entities subject to UN Security Council terrorist sanctions (e.g., ISIL/Al Qaeda lists referenced in UNSC Resolutions 1267, 1989, and 2253).

Under LFPIORPI Article 53 and its regulations, financial institutions must file Suspicious Transaction Reports (Reportes de Operaciones Inusuales, ROI) with the Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (UIF, the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Ministry of Finance) whenever they have knowledge, suspicion, or reason to believe that resources are being transferred, received, or managed in connection with terrorism, its financing, or linked to listed persons or entities. The UIF may, upon review, issue a blocking order (aseguramiento de cuentas) in pending criminal cases, but such freezing is not automatic for all UN-listed persons, nor is there a standing domestic asset-freeze mechanism.

No autonomous financial blocking or reporting on goods embargoes

There is no published regulation, statute, or guidance from Mexican regulators (Banco de México, Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, Comisión Nacional de Seguros y Fianzas, or the UIF) requiring banks or insurance companies to pro-actively screen customers against a UN consolidated list or to freeze assets on the sole ground that the customer is subject to an embargoed-goods restriction under the Acuerdo de Embargo. Any such blocking/freeze measures are instead linked to criminal proceedings or court orders. Nor is there a direct reporting obligation for embargoed merchandise transactions outside the routine AML/CFT regime.

Practical effect

Practitioner risk therefore remains predominantly in cross-border goods trade—not in domestic financial flows—unless the transaction raises AML/CFT suspicions or is flagged as related to terrorism or its financing. Mexican banks involved in cross-border transactions with U.S., EU, or UK nexus may still be contractually required by their correspondent institutions to screen for, report, or reject transactions involving sanctioned parties, but this is not (as of mid-2026) a requirement of Mexican law.

Source: Ley Federal para la Prevención e Identificación de Operaciones con Recursos de Procedencia Ilícita, Art. 53 Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020)

Mexico implements UN sanctions and embargoes on trade in goods through the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías, which specifies embargoed commodities by TIGIE codes in Annex I. To determine whether a product is subject to an embargo, practitioners must precisely match the TIGIE (Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y de Exportación) classification on their customs declaration to the lists provided in Annex I of the Embargo Agreement, as published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF).

Understanding the TIGIE system

TIGIE (updated most recently by Decree published in the DOF July 7, 2022) reflects the Harmonized System (HS) nomenclature down to the 8- or 10-digit tariff fraction used for Mexican customs. Annex I of the Embargo Agreement sets out prohibited goods by these fractions. For example, for the DPRK (North Korea) embargo, the list covers all goods under Chapter 93 (“Armas, municiones, sus partes y accesorios”), which includes headings from 9301 to 9307, and additional fractions for dual-use goods under other chapters (such as 8803.30.01 for aircraft parts).

Reading Annex I

• Each embargoed country or entity in the main body of the Embargo Agreement references a specific annex (I(a), I(b), etc.).
• Within each annex, embargoed goods are listed by TIGIE code, description, and UNSC resolution reference. The practitioner must check the full 8- or 10-digit code, as subheadings or split groups may only partially be covered by the embargo.
• Practitioners must also monitor amendments: the TIGIE schedule was harmonized with a major structural overhaul in 2022 (see Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement, DOF Oct. 11, 2022). When the TIGIE is amended, the Secretariat of Economy updates the embargo lists through further DOF notices.

Key compliance steps:

1. Classify the product using Mexico’s TIGIE, ensuring the fraction matches the invoice and customs packlist.
2. Cross-check the code against the relevant annex in the current Embargo Agreement as published or amended in the DOF.
3. Review if the embargo in that annex covers the entire heading/chapter or specific sub-fractions. Some embargoes are total (e.g., all Chapter 93 for North Korea), while others are partial.
4. If ambiguity exists (e.g., after a TIGIE structure change, or for dual-use machinery), Article Décimo Cuarto provides for formal consultation with Secretaría de Economía.
5. Monitor the DOF for any subsequent amendments that may affect coverage.

Illustrative Example: Exporting a firearm part (classified under TIGIE 9305.91.99) to Sudan would be prohibited if 9305.91.99 appears in Annex I(e) for Sudan, per the current Embargo Agreement’s annexes. If the TIGIE code is revised in the future, the embargo list amendment published in the DOF will specify the correct updated code.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020), Annex I Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022) Source: TIGIE (Decree DOF 07-Jul-2022)

Mexico’s embargo list is not static: it is subject to annual review, amendment, and harmonization whenever the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issues, modifies, or terminates a sanctions resolution. The procedural backbone ensuring this responsiveness is the annual review and amendment process routed through the Secretaría de Economía and the Comisión de Comercio Exterior (COCEX).

1. Trigger Event: Change in UNSC Resolution UNSC sanctions are binding on Mexico under Article 133 of the Constitution and implemented administratively via the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías. Any adoption, modification, or termination of a relevant UNSC resolution triggers the need to update Mexico’s embargoed goods lists (Annex I, by TIGIE fraction). Article Décimo Quinto of the Acuerdo mandates review "al menos una vez al año" (at least once per year) or as required by changes to UN measures.

2. Initial Review: Secretaría de Economía The Secretaría de Economía, through its Dirección General de Facilitación Comercial y de Comercio Exterior, is responsible for monitoring developments at the UN and initiating the domestic amendment process. Internal analysis compares current Mexican embargo lists with new or revised UNSC resolutions, identifying new goods, entities, or countries to be embargoed — and those to be removed if UNSC measures are lifted.

3. Proposal Preparation: Amendment Drafting The Secretaría drafts a proposed amendment to the Acuerdo, including concrete list changes (by TIGIE code) and the relevant annexes. This draft includes justification (citing changed UNSC measures) to support addition or removal of embargoes and is prepared for COCEX deliberation.

4. COCEX Deliberation and Approval COCEX (established by Article 5 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior and Articles 7–9 of its Reglamento) comprises representatives from the Ministry of Economy (chair), Foreign Affairs, Finance and Public Credit, Defense, and other agencies. At regularly scheduled or extraordinary sessions, COCEX reviews the Secretaría’s proposal, may request further detail, and ultimately issues an opinion authorizing or refusing the amendments. Only after COCOEX approval can the update proceed.

5. Publication in the DOF: Legal Effect The final, COCEX-approved Acuerdo amendment is published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF), with updated embargoed TIGIE codes and targets effective either on the date of publication or on a specified effective date. The DOF publication is the binding instrument controlling compliance — practitioners should consult only the latest published text. Recent amendments occurred on October 11, 2022, to harmonize TIGIE codes following the 2022 nomenclature update.

6. Practitioner Risk Points — Changes in Annex I take effect upon DOF publication; prior shipments are adjudicated based on the pre-amendment list. — There is no public-comment or challenge procedure before COCEX approval — the process is administrative, not participatory. — Monitor DOF and Secretaría de Economía bulletins monthly to capture annual or ad hoc embargo updates.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020), Arts. Décimo Quinto Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022) Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 5 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 7–9

When Mexican customs (SAT/Administración General de Aduanas) seizes goods under embargo—typically during import/export clearance or a post-entry audit—the outlined redress is the Procedimiento Administrativo en Materia Aduanera (PAMA), established by the Ley Aduanera (Customs Law), Articles 150–158. This administrative procedure governs how embargoed goods can be defended against forfeiture under Mexican sanctions law.

Trigger: Embargo Precautorio (Seizure) — Ley Aduanera Art. 151(II) and Acta de Inicio Customs initiates the embargo precautorio when it detects a breach of non-tariff restrictions—here, the presence of goods matching sanctioned TIGIE fractions listed in the Acuerdo de Embargo. Article 151(II) authorizes seizure for breaches of non-tariff regulations. The customs officer issues an "acta de inicio" identifying facts and legal grounds, as required under Article 152.

Step 1: Review Acta de Inicio and Evidence Preparation Under Art. 152, the acta de inicio must detail:

• The relevant facts (goods, quantity, classification, country of origin/destination, and cited legal restriction);
• The basis for seizure (i.e., breach under Acuerdo de Embargo, DOF publication, and TIGIE code matching those embargoed in Annex I).

Practitioners must immediately verify accuracy and assemble supporting evidence: commercial invoices, contracts, technical datasheets, correspondence with the Secretaría de Economía, or, if arguing misclassification, proof of alternative TIGIE code.

Step 2: Defense Submission (Ten Business Days) — Art. 152–153 The party has ten business days from notification to present a written defense and supporting documents to customs (Art. 152). Valid evidence includes:

• Proof that the goods are not covered by the embargoed TIGIE code;
• Evidence challenging procedural defects (e.g., improper documentation or notification);
• Any relevant authorization, although per current law, specific exemptions are rare.
• For humanitarian exemptions, Art. 17 Bis of the Ley de Comercio Exterior may apply in strictly limited disaster-relief contexts (not addressed in full by Ley Aduanera).

Step 3: Resolution Timeline and Outcome — Arts. 154, 158, 183 Customs is required to issue a resolution within four months (Art. 158). If the defense is accepted, the goods are released; if rejected, the goods are declared "abandoned in favor of the federal treasury" (Art. 183(III)) and transferred to the disposition agency. Article 154 prohibits financial guarantees (fianza) as a substitute for embargoed goods: “excepto en caso de mercancías cuya importación o exportación hubiese sido expresamente prohibida...”

**If the defense fails, appeal is available by judicial review before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (TFJA). Criminal liability for smuggling is governed separately under the Código Fiscal de la Federación.

Practical enforcement note:** Many defenses—especially ones relying on permits or exemptions—have limited likelihood of success, as the embargo is categorical by the Acuerdo de Embargo. For all procedural defenses or arguments (including misclassification), direct citation of evidence and statutory provision is vital; incomplete or late filings are typically disregarded (Art. 153).

Source: Ley Aduanera, Arts. 151–158, 183

Mexico’s Embargo Agreement (the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías para la importación o la exportación a diversos países, entidades y personas), which gives effect to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, contains no explicit general provision for humanitarian, medical, or disaster-relief exemptions as of the last amendment published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) on October 11, 2022. Unlike regimes administered by the U.S. (OFAC) or the EU, there is no published process for general or specific licenses authorizing humanitarian shipments for embargoed goods or destinations.

UNSCR 2664 and Absence of Domestic Implementation The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2664 on December 9, 2022, requiring member states to provide a humanitarian exemption to asset freezes under UN sanctions. However, a full text review of the Mexican Embargo Agreement and subsequent DOF bulletins through June 2026 reveals no published decree, amendment, or administrative guidance referencing UNSCR 2664 or establishing any carve-out, notification, or expedited permit procedure for humanitarian or medical exports to embargoed destinations. The Embargo Agreement’s operative text and annexes remain silent on this point.

Consultation Mechanism for Ambiguities or Humanitarian Circumstances Article Décimo Cuarto of the Embargo Agreement establishes a consultation channel with the Secretaría de Economía for parties seeking clarification about coverage or scope, including for humanitarian cases. The statute provides no structured procedure, timeline, or example for humanitarian review, and there are no published cases of exemption based on humanitarian grounds as of the review date. Parties must submit a written request, but the Embargo Agreement does not mention humanitarian exceptions or reference UNSCR 2664 in this context.

Article 17 Bis — General Non-Tariff Relief, Not Embargo-Specific The Ley de Comercio Exterior, Article 17 Bis, does allow for exemption from non-tariff restrictions for donated goods used in disaster relief or extreme poverty. However, this article is not cross-referenced in the Embargo Agreement, and there is no DOF or Secretaría guidance confirming its application to embargoed goods imposed pursuant to UNSC resolutions. The primary sources are silent; practitioners cannot infer that Article 17 Bis will supersede specific embargo prohibitions.

Direct Source Findings as of June 2026

• The Embargo Agreement and all amendments published in the DOF are silent on any humanitarian/medical exemption or implementation of UNSCR 2664 for embargoed merchandise.
• Article Décimo Cuarto provides only a consultation procedure; there is no published fast-track, general license, or exemption process.
• Article 17 Bis of the Ley de Comercio Exterior exempts disaster-relief donations from non-tariff restrictions generally, but its coverage does not expressly extend to embargoed goods under UN sanctions in any cited provision.

Summary for Practitioners Export or import of goods covered by an embargoed TIGIE code for humanitarian or medical purposes remains categorically prohibited in Mexico absent a published exemption or a formal consultation response from the Secretaría de Economía. Practitioners should not interpret UNSCR 2664 as self-executing in Mexico for trade embargoes. The only available relief mechanism is the Article Décimo Cuarto consultation procedure, for which neither process nor expectation of outcome is published.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020) Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 17 Bis

Mexican law does not impose detailed, OFAC-style customer screening or consolidated sanctions-list requirements for exporters or importers. Instead, embargo compliance obligations for cross-border trade are derived from the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (the Embargo Agreement implementing UN Security Council embargoes in Mexico), the Ley de Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade Law), and the Ley Aduanera (Customs Law).

Legal basis and core requirements There is no published regulation or circular from the Secretaría de Economía or Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT) mandating specific internal controls, automated screening, or a published compliance program for embargo-sensitive transactions. The legal burden on exporters and importers is substantive—not procedural: parties must not carry out transactions involving goods, countries, or persons listed in the Embargo Agreement’s annexes. Article 4 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior allows the executive to prohibit exports or imports as necessary to implement international obligations, and the Embargo Agreement’s operative articles (Tercero–Décimo Tercero) enumerate the prohibited goods and embargo targets, referencing UN Security Council resolutions directly.

Obligation to consult embargo lists and document compliance Mexican law presumes that exporters and customs brokers have consulted the current embargoed country/entity lists and the corresponding TIGIE (tariff code) annexes as published in the DOF. There is no "safe harbor" for inadvertent violations; the Embargo Agreement does not provide affirmative defenses for lack of knowledge or mistaken classification. However, the Acuerdo does set out a consultation mechanism (Art. Décimo Cuarto), allowing any party to request confirmation or clarification from the Secretaría de Economía regarding coverage or scope.

Recordkeeping Articles 36-A and 108 of the Ley Aduanera require all documentation relating to customs operations—including invoices, packing lists, correspondence with authorities, and supporting technical data—be retained for at least five years from the date of import or export. Failure to produce such documentation during a customs audit can itself be grounds for sanction.

No explicit internal control or screening procedure Absent a statutory or published regulatory obligation, due diligence is defined by the requirement to avoid dealings with embargoed goods, destinations, or entities. Practitioners should make sure every transaction is cross-checked against the latest DOF publication of the Embargo Agreement and referenced UN lists. There is no specific requirement under these statutes to screen business partners, consignees, or end users beyond checking their status against published embargoes—nor are companies legally required to use automated screening tools or to maintain an internal compliance manual, unless such obligations arise incidentally from broader AML/CFT laws in a financial context, which are not specific to embargoed goods.

Summary for compliance teams:

• Regularly review updated annexes to the Embargo Agreement and corresponding UN Security Council resolutions.
• Cross-reference all goods and counterparties in each cross-border transaction against the embargoed groups as published in the DOF.
• Document all classification and embargo checks, and retain for five years per Ley Aduanera.
• When in doubt, file a written consultation with the Secretaría de Economía (Acuerdo Art. Décimo Cuarto).

As of June 2026, no additional detailed screening, internal control, or audit requirements specific to embargoes are published in Mexican law.

Source: Acuerdo de Embargo, DOF 27-Dec-2020 Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior Source: Ley Aduanera, Arts. 36-A, 108

Mexico’s blocking statute—officially, the Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional (Law for the Protection of Trade and Investment from Foreign Norms that Contravene International Law)—was enacted to shield Mexican persons and companies from the extraterritorial effects of foreign sanctions laws, most notably the U.S. Helms-Burton Act and comparable measures against Cuba, Iran, and other countries. Published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on October 23, 1996 (amended April 20, 2012), the law is targeted at foreign norms “whose objectives are contrary to international law or treaties to which Mexico is a party” (Article 1).

Core Prohibitions and Requirements

• Article 1 bars anyone subject to Mexican jurisdiction (Mexican citizens, residents, or legal entities) from performing acts that affect trade or investment in Mexico when those acts are a consequence of such extraterritorial foreign laws.
• Article 2 prohibits providing evidence or information to foreign authorities where such provision would aid enforcement of these foreign norms.
• Article 3 blocks recognition or enforcement in Mexico of foreign judgments or arbitral awards based on the proscribed extraterritorial laws.
• Article 4 creates a right of indemnification: any Mexican person harmed by enforcement of an offending foreign law may seek damages (including legal fees) in Mexican federal court from a party that benefits from a judgment or award based on that foreign law.

Enforcement Mechanism Article 9, as amended, authorizes the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores to impose administrative fines for violations:

• Up to 100,000 days of minimum wage for violating Article 1;
• Up to 50,000 days for violating Article 2;
• Up to 30,000 days for violating Article 3.

Practical Application The statute is directed primarily at cases where a foreign parent or financial institution pressures its Mexican subsidiary to break local contracts or refuse business under orders from foreign sanctions authorities. In practice, Mexico has not reported enforcement actions or guidance under the law since its enactment, but the prohibition is legally operative. There is no affirmative obligation to report potential violations, but practitioners should be aware the law forbids compliance with extraterritorial sanctions deemed contrary to international law.

Source: Ley de Protección al Comercio y la Inversión de Normas Extranjeras que Contravengan el Derecho Internacional (DOF 23-Oct-1996, last amended 20-Apr-2012)

As of June 2026, Mexico does not publish or administer a formal permit, exemption, or specific authorization process for transactions covered by the Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (Embargo Agreement) implementing United Nations Security Council (UNSC) embargoes. Once a good, destination, or person is listed in the Embargo Agreement annexes, the prohibition is categorical: export, import, or transit of such goods is prohibited with no routine path to obtain a waiver, licence, or special authorization from the Secretaría de Economía or another authority.

Authorities and Doctrine

• Article Décimo Cuarto of the Embargo Agreement creates a consultation procedure to clarify the interpretation of the scope—particularly if there is doubt whether a TIGIE code, transaction, or party falls inside or outside the prohibition. It does not establish a licensing, waiver, or exemption regime. This article enables a written query to the Dirección General de Facilitación Comercial y de Comercio Exterior but provides no timeline or criteria for approval of exceptions, nor is there reference to forms comparable to "permisos especiales" for other non-tariff restrictions.
• Article 17 Bis of the Ley de Comercio Exterior allows for exemption from non-tariff restrictions for donated goods related to disaster relief or extreme poverty, but the Embargo Agreement does not reference this article for UNSC measures—nor does DOF publication or Secretaría guidance indicate that this is a viable pathway for embargoed goods. There is no implementing regulation or electronic permit form published for embargo exceptions under the Agreement.
• There are no Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) decrees, agreements, or circulars (including recent amendments through October 2022) enacting a special licence or general authorization regime for embargoed items in line with UNSC carve-outs. Humanitarian exemptions have not been operationalized in Mexican law for embargoed shipments.

Practitioner Takeaway

• The only available pathway to seek relief is the Article Décimo Cuarto consultation, but as of June 2026, this procedure yields clarification, not authorization. There is no path for case-by-case licensing, general licences, or expedited "humanitarian export" permits. Practitioners should not advise clients to expect a licence channel analogous to the U.S. OFAC or EU system. Until published otherwise in the DOF, all listed embargo restrictions under the Acuerdo must be treated as absolute under Mexican law.

Source: Acuerdo que establece un embargo de mercancías (DOF 27-Dec-2020), Arts. Décimo Cuarto Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 17 Bis Source: Acuerdo que modifica al Embargo Agreement (DOF 11-Oct-2022)