Mexico — Trade Remedies

Mexico's trade remedy system is governed primarily by the Ley de Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade Act, "LCE"), enacted on 27 July 1993 and codified as a federal statute administered by the Secretaría de Economía (Ministry of Economy). The LCE declares as one of its principal objectives to "defend the domestic productive base from unfair practices of international trade" and to regulate and promote foreign trade while integrating the Mexican economy into the international marketplace.

Statutory definition of unfair trade practices. Article 28 of the LCE defines unfair international trade practices (prácticas desleales de comercio internacional) as the importation of merchandise under conditions of price discrimination or subsidization in the exporting country—whether the country of origin or the country of export—that cause injury to a domestic industry producing identical or similar goods. Importers of merchandise subject to such practices are obligated to pay countervailing duties (cuotas compensatorias) as determined under the Act.

Administering authority: Secretaría de Economía. Article 2 of the LCE assigns administrative application and interpretation of the statute to the federal Executive through the Secretaría de Economía. Within that ministry, the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (Unit for International Trade Practices, "UPCI") conducts antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, administers sunset reviews (exámenes de vigencia), and determines countervailing duty rates. As of 31 March 2026, the UPCI reports 62 active trade remedy proceedings (28 original investigations, 2 antisubsidy investigations, 27 sunset reviews, and 5 duty-rate revisions) and 97 countervailing duties in force covering 63 products from 22 countries; 46.39% of the measures target goods originating in China, and the "basic metals and manufactures thereof" sector accounts for 61.85% of all measures.

Regulatory framework. The Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (Regulations to the Foreign Trade Act, "RLCE") implements the procedural provisions of the LCE governing unfair-trade investigations, safeguard measures, determination of countervailing duties, and the operation of the Comisión de Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade Commission), which reviews draft final determinations before the Secretaría issues them.

WTO obligations. Mexico is a founding member of the World Trade Organization. The LCE and RLCE incorporate by reference the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "Antidumping Agreement") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty determinations must comply with those multilateral agreements, and Article 29 of the LCE expressly directs the Secretaría to apply WTO methodology when determining the existence of price discrimination, subsidization, injury, and causation.

Publication requirement. All initiations, preliminary determinations, final determinations, and notices regarding the validity of countervailing duties must be published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette) to have legal effect.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 1, 2, 5, 28, 29 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 1, 9 Source: UPCI Statistical Report, 31 March 2026

Mexico's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are initiated by the Secretaría de Economía only upon petition by an interested party, except in the case of safeguard investigations (which may be initiated ex officio). The Secretaría has no authority to self-initiate an unfair-trade investigation; the mechanism is petition-driven, and the petition must satisfy both content and industry-support tests before the Secretaría will publish a notice of initiation.

Who may petition. Article 49 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior specifies that an investigation may be initiated "at the request of the party with a legitimate interest." In practice, this means the domestic producers—either individually or through an industry association—of the identical or similar good. Importers, exporters, and foreign governments lack standing to petition for the imposition of a countervailing duty on their own imports, though they may participate as interested parties once an investigation is opened.

Petition content requirements. The petition must be submitted in writing and accompanied by official forms (formularios) published by the Secretaría. Article 49 requires the petition to contain:

• A description of the imported merchandise, including tariff classification and commercial name;
• Identification of the country or countries of origin and export;
• Evidence of dumping (price discrimination) or subsidization in the exporting country, including the calculation of the normal value in the exporting-country market and the export price to Mexico, or in the case of subsidies, the amount and nature of the government benefit;
• Evidence of injury to the domestic industry, supported by data on production volume, sales, market share, capacity utilization, employment, inventories, prices, and profitability over a minimum three-year period (or such period as is representative of market conditions);
• Evidence of a causal link between the subject imports and the injury, including import volume and market-share trends and their correlation with the domestic industry's financial performance; and
• An estimate of the proportion of domestic production the petitioner(s) represent.

The Secretaría has published detailed petition forms and evidentiary guides—available on the UPCI section of the Secretaría de Economía's website—that specify the format for submitting pricing data, injury indicators, and the narrative statement of the case. Article 49 explicitly requires that petitioners attach the Secretaría's official forms; failure to do so renders the petition inadmissible.

Industry-support test. Article 51 of the LCE, incorporating the WTO Antidumping Agreement's standing requirements, provides that the petition is deemed filed "on behalf of the domestic industry" only if:

• Domestic producers expressly supporting the petition account for more than 50 percent of the total production of the identical or similar good produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition to the petition; and
• Domestic producers expressly supporting the petition account for at least 25 percent of total domestic production of the identical or similar good (including production by firms that have expressed no view).

If the petition fails the 50-percent test among firms expressing a view, or the 25-percent floor among all domestic producers, the Secretaría must reject the petition without opening an investigation. The Secretaría may poll the domestic industry or request additional production data if the petition does not contain sufficient evidence of support.

Secretaría's decision timeline. Upon receiving a petition, Article 50 of the LCE requires the Secretaría to take one of three actions:

1. Within 25 days: accept the petition and publish a notice of initiation in the Diario Oficial de la Federación, naming the subject merchandise, the exporting countries, the period of investigation (POI), and the provisional list of known importers and exporters;
2. Within 17 days: issue a written requirement (requerimiento) requesting additional evidence or data, which the petitioner must provide within 20 days or the petition will be deemed not filed; or
3. Within 20 days: reject the petition on the grounds of insufficient evidence of dumping, subsidization, injury, causation, or industry support.

The Secretaría's decision to initiate or to reject is not subject to administrative appeal, though it may be challenged in amparo proceedings before federal district courts. If the Secretaría accepts the petition and issues a notice of initiation, the investigation proceeds under a statutory calendar: preliminary determination within 130 days of initiation (extendable to 190 days), and final determination within 260 days of initiation (extendable to 360 days in complex cases involving multiple exporters or countries).

Practice notes. Petitions are resource-intensive. Domestic producers typically engage trade-remedy counsel and economic consultants to prepare the evidentiary package, particularly the price-undercutting and price-suppression analyses. The Secretaría's UPCI maintains an online register of active investigations and a historical archive of initiation notices, preliminary and final determinations, and duty rates, which practitioners should review to assess the typical margin ranges and injury-indicator benchmarks that satisfy the sufficiency threshold in the relevant product sector.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 49, 50, 51 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 63–68

The dumping margin in Mexico is calculated by comparing the normal value of the imported merchandise in the exporting-country market with the export price to Mexico. The margin is expressed as the difference between these two values; if the export price is lower than the normal value, dumping exists and the resulting margin becomes the basis for the countervailing duty (cuota compensatoria) imposed by the Secretaría de Economía.

Definition of dumping: price discrimination. Article 30 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior defines importation under conditions of price discrimination (discriminación de precios) as the introduction of merchandise into Mexican territory at a price inferior to its normal value. The comparison is always between the normal value in the country of origin or export and the price charged on the export sale to Mexico.

Normal value: primary method. Article 31 of the LCE provides that the normal value of merchandise exported to Mexico is the comparable price of an identical or similar good sold in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country. The Secretaría determines comparability by reference to the characteristics of the merchandise, the conditions of sale, the quantities sold, and the timing of the transaction. The normal value is established based on actual home-market sales data during the period of investigation (typically six months of export transactions).

Alternative methods when home-market sales are unavailable. Article 31 further provides that when sales of an identical or similar good are not made in the domestic market of the country of origin, or when such sales do not permit a valid comparison—for instance, due to a particular market situation (situación especial del mercado) or low volume of sales in the domestic market—the Secretaría will determine normal value by one of two alternative methods:

1. Third-country export price. The comparable price of the identical or similar good when exported from the country of origin to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is representative and made in the ordinary course of trade. Article 31 specifies that the Secretaría will use the highest such price when multiple third-country markets exist.

1. Constructed value (valor reconstruido). The sum of (a) the cost of production in the country of origin, (b) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling, and general expenses, and (c) a reasonable amount for profit. Article 31, second paragraph, and Article 42 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior specify that the Secretaría may construct the normal value when home-market sales are not in the ordinary course of trade or when, due to a particular market situation or low volume of home-market sales, those sales do not permit a valid comparison. The RLCE further elaborates that below-cost sales—sales at prices lower than the unit fixed and variable costs of production plus administrative, selling, and general expenses—may be considered not to have been made in the ordinary course of trade and may be excluded from the calculation of normal value.

Export price. Article 32 of the LCE defines the export price as the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for export to Mexico, adjusted as necessary to account for differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, and physical characteristics. When the export price cannot be determined on the basis of the transaction between the exporter and the importer—for example, because the sale is between related parties or because no actual sale exists—the Secretaría may construct the export price based on the price at which the imported merchandise is first resold to an independent buyer in Mexico, minus costs incurred after importation (such as duties, inland transport, and distribution costs).

Calculation and expression of the dumping margin. The dumping margin is the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price. Article 31 and Article 42 of the RLCE specify that the Secretaría calculates the margin on a product-by-product (or model-by-model) basis and typically expresses it either in ad valorem terms (as a percentage of the export price) or in specific terms (such as a dollar or peso amount per kilogram or per unit). The Secretaría publishes the methodology, data sources, and adjustments applied in its preliminary and final determinations, which are issued in the Diario Oficial de la Federación and form the administrative record subject to judicial review.

Below-cost sales and ordinary course of trade. Article 32 of the LCE provides that, for purposes of calculating normal value, the Secretaría may exclude from consideration sales in the country of origin or export to a third country made at prices below unit costs of production (fixed and variable costs plus administrative, selling, and general expenses), when such sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade. Article 42 of the RLCE clarifies that a "sufficient quantity" of home-market sales is required to establish the normal value; the regulation does not quantify "sufficient," but the Secretaría applies the WTO Antidumping Agreement's 5-percent-of-export-volume threshold in practice. When the volume of profitable home-market sales falls below this threshold, the Secretaría turns to constructed value or third-country export price.

Period of investigation. The Secretaría typically examines a six-month period for purposes of calculating the dumping margin and a three-year period for assessing injury to the domestic industry. The periods are specified in the notice of initiation published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. The dumping-margin calculation is frozen as of the preliminary determination (130–190 days after initiation) and refined—if the Secretaría conducts on-site verification of exporter or producer data—in the final determination (issued within 260 days of initiation, extendable to 360 days).

Duty amount. Article 28 of the LCE provides that the countervailing duty shall be equivalent, in the case of price discrimination, to the difference between the normal value and the export price. Article 36 specifies that countervailing duties may be imposed on an ad valorem basis, a specific basis, or a mixed (compound) basis. In practice, the Secretaría imposes company-specific duties when an exporter cooperates with the investigation and submits verified sales and cost data; non-cooperating exporters and "all others" are typically assigned the highest margin found in the investigation or, if no cooperating exporter exists, a margin based on the facts available, which may include the margin alleged in the petition.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 28, 30, 31, 32, 36 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 42

Mexico may impose an antidumping or countervailing duty only if the Secretaría de Economía determines that the subject imports cause daño (injury) to the domestic industry producing identical or similar goods. The injury determination is independent of, and in addition to, the finding of dumping or subsidization; both elements must be established before a countervailing duty can be applied. The statutory framework tracks the WTO Antidumping Agreement and requires the Secretaría to evaluate injury indicators, assess causation, and distinguish the effects of dumped imports from other factors that may harm the domestic industry.

Definition of injury. Article 39 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior defines three forms of actionable injury:

1. Material injury (daño material) to a domestic industry;
2. Threat of material injury (amenaza de daño material) to a domestic industry; or
3. Material retardation (retraso sensible) in the establishment of a domestic industry.

The Secretaría must find at least one of these three forms of injury, supported by positive evidence and an objective examination of import volume, price effects, and the consequent impact on the domestic industry, before it may impose a countervailing duty. A finding based solely on allegation, conjecture, or minimal evidence does not satisfy the statutory standard.

Domestic industry. Article 40 of the LCE defines the "domestic industry" (rama de producción nacional) as the domestic producers, as a whole, of the identical or similar goods, or those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those goods. The Secretaría may exclude from the domestic-industry definition producers that are related to exporters or importers, or that are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped merchandise, and may define the domestic industry to include only the remaining unrelated producers, provided that they account for at least 25 percent of total domestic production. The industry-support test at the petition stage (Article 51 of the LCE) and the injury determination refer to this same domestic-industry definition.

Injury factors: volume and price effects. Article 41 of the LCE directs the Secretaría to evaluate whether the volume of dumped imports, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in Mexico, is significant, and whether the effect of the dumped imports is to depress prices significantly or to prevent price increases that otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree. The statute does not establish numerical thresholds; significance is assessed in the context of the particular market and the conditions of competition in that sector.

Article 64 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior requires the Secretaría to assess the volume of the subject imports in absolute terms and as a share of apparent national consumption (production plus imports minus exports). The Secretaría examines whether imports increased during the period of investigation, whether the rate of increase was significant, and whether the import share of the Mexican market grew. Price effects are evaluated by comparing the prices of the subject imports with the prices of the domestic like product and by assessing whether the subject imports undercut domestic prices, depressed domestic prices, or suppressed price increases that the domestic industry would have realized absent the dumped imports.

Injury factors: impact on the domestic industry. Article 42 of the LCE enumerates a non-exhaustive list of economic factors the Secretaría must evaluate when assessing the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry. These factors include:

• An actual or potential decline in sales, profits, production, market share, productivity, return on investment, or capacity utilization;
• Factors affecting domestic prices;
• The magnitude of the dumping margin;
• Actual or potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, and the ability to raise capital or make investments.

The Secretaría evaluates these indicators over a minimum three-year period (the injury period, typically longer than the six-month period of investigation for dumping-margin purposes) to assess trends and the evolution of the domestic industry's condition. Article 65 of the RLCE specifies that the Secretaría must evaluate the injury factors "within the context of the economic cycle and the conditions of competition specific to the affected industry," and that petitioners and interested parties should provide information spanning at least three years prior to the filing of the petition, including the period investigated, unless the domestic producer was established more recently.

The statute does not mandate that all factors show negative trends, nor does it assign weights to individual factors. The Secretaría conducts a holistic assessment and must explain in its preliminary and final determinations which factors were determinative and why the totality of the evidence demonstrates material injury or threat of injury.

Causation requirement. Article 41 of the LCE further requires the Secretaría to demonstrate a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry. The examination must show that the dumped imports are causing injury "through the effects of dumping" as defined in Articles 30–32 (price discrimination) or Articles 33–35 (subsidization). Article 64 of the RLCE codifies the WTO Antidumping Agreement's non-attribution rule: the Secretaría must examine any known factors other than the dumped imports that are injuring the domestic industry at the same time, and must not attribute injury caused by those other factors to the dumped imports. Such other factors may include:

• The volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices;
• Contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption;
• Restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, foreign and domestic producers;
• Developments in technology; and
• The export performance and productivity of the domestic industry.

The Secretaría must separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the dumped imports from the injurious effects of these other factors. In practice, the causation analysis appears in a dedicated section of the preliminary and final determinations published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación, where the Secretaría correlates the increase in dumped import volumes and market share with the decline in the domestic industry's indicators and explains why other factors, if present, do not break the causal link.

Threat of material injury. Article 43 of the LCE permits the Secretaría to find threat of material injury if the facts demonstrate that dumping would cause injury in the imminent future unless protective measures are taken. The determination must be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture, or remote possibility. Article 66 of the RLCE lists factors the Secretaría considers when evaluating threat, including:

• The rate of increase of dumped imports into Mexico, indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation;
• Sufficient freely disposable capacity of the exporter, or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity, indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Mexico;
• Imports entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and likely increase demand for further imports;
• Inventories of the product being investigated; and
• The nature of the subsidy or margin of dumping and the trade and production trends in the exporting country.

A threat finding must be prospective and supported by evidence that injury is imminent, not speculative. The Secretaría has imposed provisional or final duties on the basis of threat of material injury in a minority of investigations, typically when the domestic industry is newly established or when a surge of imports is forecast based on exporter capacity data.

Publication and review. The Secretaría publishes its injury findings—preliminary and final—in the Diario Oficial de la Federación and posts non-confidential versions of the determination and the parties' submissions on the UPCI website. Interested parties may submit comments on the injury analysis during the investigation, and the Secretaría is required to address material arguments in its final determination. Injury determinations are subject to judicial review by the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa under the general administrative-procedure laws of Mexico, and parties may also invoke the binational-panel dispute-settlement mechanisms under trade agreements such as USMCA Chapter 10 (for goods covered by that agreement).

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 64, 65, 66

An exporter, importer, or domestic producer dissatisfied with an antidumping or countervailing duty determination issued by the Secretaría de Economía may challenge the determination through two principal domestic avenues: an optional administrative appeal (recurso de revocación) followed by a nullity trial (juicio contencioso administrativo) before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa (TFJA), or direct judicial review before the TFJA without first exhausting the administrative appeal. A separate constitutional remedy—amparo proceedings before federal courts—is also available to challenge determinations on constitutional grounds. The procedural rules, deadlines, and strategic choices differ depending on whether the party is attacking the substantive antidumping or countervailing duty determination (the dumping margin, injury finding, or duty rate) or an act applying the duty to a specific import entry (such as a liquidation assessment by customs authorities).

**Administrative appeal (recurso de revocación): Articles 94–96 of the LCE.** Article 94 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior enumerates the types of determinations subject to administrative appeal. The most commonly challenged are:

• Final determinations imposing definitive countervailing duties or the acts that apply those duties (Article 94, fraction V);
• Final determinations concluding an investigation without imposing a duty (Article 94, fraction IV), typically appealed by domestic petitioners;
• Determinations rejecting or abandoning a petition to initiate an investigation (Article 94, fraction III);
• Sunset review determinations that confirm, modify, or revoke definitive duties after the five-year review period (Article 94, fraction VIII, referencing Article 68 of the LCE).

Article 94, eighth paragraph, assigns jurisdiction over the administrative appeal based on the nature of the challenged act. Appeals against the Secretaría de Economía's substantive determinations—such as the final dumping margin, injury finding, or the imposition of a definitive duty—must be filed with the Secretaría de Economía. Appeals against acts that apply a definitive countervailing duty—such as the liquidation and collection of unpaid duties on a specific import entry by the Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público (SHCP) or customs authorities—must be filed with SHCP. The latter category of appeals is governed by the procedural rules in the Código Fiscal de la Federación, while the former is governed by the LCE and its regulations.

Deadline and effect of filing. The administrative appeal must be filed within 15 business days of the date the appellant was notified of the challenged determination. This deadline is derived from Article 94 of the LCE, which incorporates by reference the time limits established in the Código Fiscal de la Federación for administrative appeals. Article 95 of the LCE provides that the purpose of the administrative appeal is to "revoke, modify, or confirm the challenged determination." The Secretaría (or SHCP, as applicable) must issue a decision on the appeal, and that decision itself may be challenged before the TFJA.

Exhaustion of the administrative appeal is optional. Article 95, second paragraph, of the LCE states that decisions on administrative appeals—or determinations as to which no administrative appeal was filed—"may be challenged before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa" in a nullity trial under the procedures set forth in the Código Fiscal de la Federación and the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa. The statute does not require exhaustion of the administrative appeal before filing the nullity trial; the appeal is optional. Article 95, third paragraph, however, provides that determinations that are not appealed within the statutory deadline (whether through administrative appeal or through filing a nullity complaint) "shall be deemed final (consentidas) and may not be challenged before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa." This means that a party must choose one route or the other within the applicable deadline, but is not required to exhaust the administrative appeal before proceeding to court.

Nullity trial before the TFJA: Article 95 of the LCE and the LFPCA. An interested party may file a complaint (demanda) seeking nullification of an antidumping or countervailing duty determination before the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa, a specialized federal administrative court with jurisdiction over disputes arising from acts of federal administrative authorities. Article 95, second paragraph, of the LCE expressly authorizes this route. The nullity trial is governed by the Ley Federal de Procedimiento Contencioso Administrativo (LFPCA). Article 1 of the LFPCA was amended, effective June 9, 2026, to clarify that when an administrative appeal decision does not fully protect the taxpayer’s interest, unresolved or affected parts may be included in the judicial proceeding, and new arguments not previously raised may be admitted. This expansion of scope further strengthens procedural guarantees in the nullity trial process.

Article 13 of the LFPCA assigns venue based on the subject matter of the dispute. The plaintiff must file the complaint with the Sala Especializada en Materia de Comercio Exterior (Specialized Chamber for Foreign Trade Matters) or the competent Sala Regional (Regional Chamber) based on the plaintiff's domicile, or may file electronically through the Sistema de Justicia en Línea (Online Justice System). For challenges to the Secretaría de Economía's determinations enumerated in Article 94 of the LCE—including final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations—the complaint must be filed within 15 business days of notification of the determination (or, if an administrative appeal was filed, within 15 business days of the decision on that appeal). Article 13 of the LFPCA also specifies that the plaintiff must set forth in the complaint the facts giving rise to the claim, the legal grounds on which the determination is alleged to be unlawful, and the evidence the plaintiff will offer, including the administrative record compiled by the Secretaría during the investigation.

The TFJA reviews the challenged determination for compliance with the Ley de Comercio Exterior, the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, the WTO Antidumping Agreement and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (which Article 29 of the LCE incorporates by reference and directs the Secretaría to apply), and applicable administrative-law principles. If the TFJA finds that the Secretaría violated the law, it will issue a judgment nullifying the determination and, typically, ordering the Secretaría to issue a new determination in accordance with the court's reasoning. The judgment is binding on the parties. Article 52 of the LFPCA provides that the Secretaría must comply with the TFJA's judgment within four months of notification.

Judgments of the TFJA may be appealed by filing amparo directo (direct amparo) before a federal Collegiate Circuit Court if a party contends that the TFJA's judgment itself violates the party's constitutional rights or misinterprets the law.

**Constitutional amparo proceedings.** The amparo lawsuit is a constitutional remedy available under Articles 103 and 107 of the Mexican Constitution. A party whose constitutional rights have been violated by an antidumping or countervailing duty determination may file an amparo indirecto (indirect amparo) before a federal District Court (now called Juzgado de Distrito) alleging, for example, that the determination violated the party's right to due process, to a hearing, or to legality and legal certainty. Alternatively, a party that first litigated the determination in a nullity trial before the TFJA may file an amparo directo (direct amparo) before a Collegiate Circuit Court challenging the TFJA's judgment on constitutional grounds.

The principle of definitividad (finality) generally requires that a party exhaust available non-constitutional remedies before filing amparo indirecto. Because the administrative appeal under Article 94 of the LCE is optional, a party may file amparo indirecto without first exhausting the administrative appeal, but the party must demonstrate that the determination causes immediate and irreparable harm. In practice, most parties elect the nullity trial before the TFJA, which offers specialized expertise in trade remedy matters and a full evidentiary record, rather than amparo indirecto.

Deadlines and finality. A determination that is not challenged through administrative appeal or through a nullity complaint within 15 business days of notification is deemed final under Article 95, third paragraph, of the LCE, and the party loses the right to contest the determination before the TFJA. Practitioners must therefore act quickly. The 15-day deadline is strict; tolling is available only in limited circumstances, such as when the Secretaría failed to provide proper notification of the determination as required by Article 93 of the LCE (which mandates publication in the Diario Oficial de la Federación).

Alternative international review mechanisms. Article 97 of the LCE provides that, with respect to certain final determinations (those listed in Article 94, fractions IV, V, VI, and VIII), an interested party may elect to pursue dispute resolution through mechanisms established in international trade agreements to which Mexico is a party—such as binational panel review under USMCA Chapter 10—instead of pursuing domestic judicial review. Once a party elects such an international mechanism, Article 97 specifies that the party waives the right to file an administrative appeal, a nullity trial, or an amparo proceeding with respect to the same determination. This alternative is available only when the applicable trade agreement provides for such review and the party qualifies under the agreement's standing requirements.

June 2026 update: Article 1 of the Ley Federal de Procedimiento Contencioso Administrativo was amended, expanding the scope of judicial review in nullity trials as described above.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 93, 94, 95, 97 Source: Ley Federal de Procedimiento Contencioso Administrativo, Arts. 1, 13, 52

Countervailing duties (cuotas compensatorias) imposed through trade remedies in Mexico are not perpetual—they are time-limited and subject to a mandatory “sunset review” (examen de vigencia) every five years. The legal authority is found in Articles 68–70 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) and Articles 96–103 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE).

Trigger and publication notice. Under LCE Art. 68, the Secretaría de Economía must issue a notice in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) at least 60 days before the five-year anniversary of the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty. This notice announces the upcoming expiry and invites interested parties—especially domestic producers—to request a review during the final three months of the five-year term. If no review is requested, or if no sufficient petition is received, the countervailing duty expires automatically at the five-year mark (LCE Art. 68, RLCE Art. 97).

Initiation and petition requirements. The review may be initiated either:

• Ex officio by the Secretaría, or
• Upon petition by a domestic producer or producers.

A valid petition must contain documentary evidence that expiry of the measure would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidization and injury. RLCE Art. 100 details required submissions: recent data (usually covering the previous three years) on production, sales, imports, prices, and injury indicators, plus an economic and legal rationale. RLCE Art. 101 specifies that a petition lacking required information will be deemed not filed.

Procedures and timeline. The Secretaría examines whether eliminating duties would probably allow renewed dumping/subsidization and renewed injury. The procedure largely tracks that of an original investigation and includes all standard evidentiary and procedural protections (LCE Art. 69). All interested parties—including domestic producers, importers, exporters, foreign governments—may submit evidence and legal arguments (RLCE Arts. 98–99, 102). While the law requires “prompt” conclusion, it does not specify a strict maximum duration in these articles. The countervailing duties remain in force while the review is ongoing; if the Secretaría fails to issue a resolution, the duty lapses (LCE Art. 68).

Possible outcomes. The Secretaría may, by reasoned resolution published in the DOF:

• Revoke the duties (if expiry would not likely result in renewed dumping/injury),
• Renew or amend the duties for another five years (if statutory criteria are met), or
• Modify the amount/scope, based on the evidence submitted.

All resolutions must set out the factual and legal grounds supporting the decision and are open to judicial review.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 68–70 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 96–103

Mexico's trade law allows the imposition of provisional (preliminary) antidumping or countervailing duties (medidas provisionales) before a final determination, to prevent injury to the domestic industry during the investigation. The legal authority is found in Articles 57–60 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) and Articles 82–85 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE).

Conditions for imposition. Under LCE Art. 57, the Secretaría de Economía may impose provisional duties only if:

• There is sufficient evidence of dumping or subsidization, and
• There is sufficient evidence of injury and a causal link, and
• The measure is necessary to prevent injury during the investigation.

The evidentiary standard is lower than for a final determination: the Secretaría need only make a "preliminary determination" (resolución preliminar) that the requirements are provisionally met (LCE Art. 57, RLCE Art. 82).

Timing and process. The Secretaría must publish a notice of the preliminary determination and the measure in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). Provisional duties can be imposed no earlier than 45 days after initiation of the investigation and must be imposed, if at all, within 130 days of initiation (extendable to 190 days for complex cases) (LCE Art. 58, RLCE Art. 83). The Secretaría must include a summary of the facts and grounds in the notice. All parties are given an opportunity to provide comments and evidence before the final phase of the investigation.

Form and duration of provisional measures. Provisional duties may take the form of ad valorem, specific, or mixed quotas, or a requirement for security (guarantee or bond) in the estimated amount. Provisional measures may not exceed four months from imposition (with a possible two-month extension for subsidies) (LCE Art. 59). If the investigation concludes with a negative final determination, any duties or guarantees collected must be refunded or released immediately (LCE Art. 60).

Security requirement. RLCE Art. 85 specifies that the importer may post a security in lieu of cash payment during the provisional phase. The security is released or converted to a duty depending on the outcome of the final determination. The customs authority (SHCP) is responsible for collection, release, or reimbursement.

All procedural acts, facts, and legal grounds for provisional measures must be expressly published in the DOF to take legal effect.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 57–60 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 82–85

After a full investigation and a positive final determination, Mexico imposes definitive (final) antidumping or countervailing duties through a reasoned resolution by the Secretaría de Economía, published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). The authority and procedures are codified in Articles 61–67 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) and Articles 86–95 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE).

Criteria for imposition. Definitive duties may be applied only if the Secretaría determines (1) that dumping or subsidization occurred, (2) that this caused injury, threat, or material retardation to the domestic industry, and (3) the causal link is proven, as set out in a reasoned final resolution (LCE Art. 61). The resolution must include findings of fact and law, identification of subject merchandise (with tariff codes and precise descriptions), the investigated exporters/producers, normal value, export price, injury analysis, and the methodology for calculating margins. These requirements align with the due process protections in the WTO Antidumping and ASCM agreements.

Calculation and structure of duties. Definitive duties may be imposed on an ad valorem (percentage), specific (per-unit), or mixed basis, as deemed appropriate based on the case record (LCE Art. 36, Art. 61; RLCE Art. 89). The duty amount must not exceed the dumping/subsidy margin or the amount necessary to remedy the injury—whichever is lower (LCE Art. 61, RLCE Art. 89). The Secretaría typically assigns company-specific rates to cooperating exporters and an "all others" rate for uncooperative parties (RLCE Art. 89, reflecting facts available rules). In line with transparency, the DOF publication must specify the applicable rates, affected tariff codes, exporter names, and the basis or triggers for duty adjustments or refunds.

Legal effect and customs enforcement. Per LCE Art. 62, definitive duties are collected by the customs authority (SHCP) at importation of the subject goods, and remain in force for five years unless terminated earlier via sunset review, judicial review, or a change in circumstances. Imports must pay the duty unless an explicit exemption or suspension applies (e.g., following a negative injury or sunset review). The duties take effect from the day following DOF publication—or a later date as stated in the notice (LCE Art. 62; RLCE Art. 90).

Publication and appeal. The Secretaría must publish every final determination in the DOF, with the full legal and factual basis (LCE Art. 62). Affected parties may challenge the determination or imposition by judicial and administrative means described in the previously covered appeal section. Practitioners should monitor the DOF closely: every active duty in force—including company-specific and "all-others" rates—is traceable in the DOF database, which is the official registry for enforceability.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 36, 61–67 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 86–95

New exporter or producer reviews (revisión de nuevos exportadores o productores) provide a mechanism under Mexican trade law for unexamined exporters or producers that did not export subject goods to Mexico during the original investigation period to request an individualized antidumping or countervailing duty rate. This process covers the frequent scenario where an exporter begins shipments after the period of investigation (POI) that led to imposition of definitive duties—and faces the often higher “all others” rate until individually reviewed.

Governing authority. The legal basis is Article 69-B of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE), with implementation rules in Articles 105–108 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE). These govern definitive antidumping and countervailing duties imposed under the LCE.

Who is eligible?

• A foreign producer or exporter not affiliated with any producer or exporter in the exporting country that is already subject to an individual margin from the original investigation (RLCE Art. 105, fraction I).
• The petitioner must show it did not export subject merchandise to Mexico during the POI (RLCE Art. 105, fraction II).
• The applicant cannot be related to or associated with any producer/exporter subject to the duty (RLCE Art. 105, fractions III–IV).

Initiation and petition requirements.

• The exporter or producer requests review before the Secretaría de Economía, providing evidence it meets RLCE Art. 105’s criteria and information allowing determination of normal value, export price, and relevant data (RLCE Art. 107).
• The Secretaría may require additional evidence to test eligibility and reported sales.

Timeline and process:

• Once a compliant petition is filed, the Secretaría assesses eligibility within 30 days, notifies acceptance, or requests further data (RLCE Art. 107).
• The review then runs under similar procedural rules to an original investigation: both sides submit evidence, the ministry may verify data, and duties are calculated per LCE and RLCE rules. The law says the Secretaría must issue a resolution “promptamente”—there is no statutory deadline for completion (LCE Art. 69-B).
• Provisional or definitive duties for the exporter/producer may be set retroactively from the start date of the review (LCE Art. 69-B, penultimate paragraph).

Legal effect and duty liability:

• If the review finds a lower margin, the petitioner pays the new rate (with excess duties refunded for shipments since review initiation).
• If the review finds a higher margin, the importer owes the difference retroactively (LCE Art. 69-B).
• Failing eligibility or evidence, the “all others” or facts-available rate continues to apply.

Publication and enforceability:

• Final decisions are published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. The new rate binds for future entries, but retroactive adjustment to prior entries during the review window is possible.

Practitioners should note: The process does not suspend duty payment pending review. Importers must pay the all-others rate at entry and recover excess (or pay shortfall) after a final result.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 69-B Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 105–108

Mexico's Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) allows the government to impose safeguard (salvaguardia) measures—temporary import restrictions—when a surge of imports causes or threatens "daño grave" (serious injury) to a domestic industry. These are distinct from antidumping (AD) or countervailing (CVD) duties: safeguards do not require a finding of unfair trade, only a qualifying increase in imports that impairs domestic producers.

Legal definitions and basic structure.

• LCE Article 45 authorizes safeguard measures (defined as ad valorem or specific duties, quotas, or prior-permit regimes; “prior-permit systems” are licensing schemes restricting entry above a certain quantity).
• “Serious injury” is defined in Article 46 as significant overall impairment of a domestic industry; “threat” means clear imminence of such injury. Article 47 lists required factors: the rate of import increase, circumstances of injury, and direct impact on domestic production, sales, and employment.

Procedural timelines and requirements.

• The Secretaría de Economía may initiate a safeguard investigation by notice in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (Art. 48; RLCE Art. 70). The Secretariat then examines both factual injury and causation (Art. 47, RLCE Art. 71).
• The investigation must conclude with a final determination no later than 210 calendar days after the day following publication of initiation (Art. 75 LCE).

Provisional measures in critical circumstances.

• Where delay would cause difficult-to-repair harm, provisional safeguard measures (preliminary duties, quotas, or permit restrictions) may be imposed within 20 days of initiation (Art. 78). Provisional safeguards may last up to six months (180 days) (Art. 79). If the final determination upholds the measure, it remains in force; if not, previously collected duties must be refunded with statutory interest (Art. 79).

Key practitioner notes.

• Watch for initiation and provisional measure notices in the DOF; these trigger the statutory timelines for response. There is no express “20-day challenge window” in statute, but interested parties may submit arguments and evidence at multiple points before and after provisional safeguards are imposed (RLCE Arts. 70–71). Safeguard cases hinge on demonstrating the link between increased imports and serious domestic impact—numbers matter.
• All safeguard initiations and resolutions must be published in the DOF to be effective (Art. 48 LCE); check DOF for full operative text and deadlines.

Why it matters. Safeguards are Mexico’s tool for fast action against import surges—even where pricing is not "unfair". They operate on strict deadlines and offer a defined process for both imposing and contesting temporary relief measures.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 45–48, 75, 78–79 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 70–71

Mexico’s trade-remedy system permits exporters or foreign producers subject to an antidumping or countervailing investigation to offer a price undertaking (compromiso de precios) as an alternative to the imposition of duties. A price undertaking is a legally binding written commitment in which the exporter agrees to revise prices or cease exports at dumped/subsidized prices, aiming to remove the injurious effect to Mexico’s domestic industry.

Statutory basis and acceptance procedure. Article 72 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) establishes that during an investigation, the Secretaría de Economía may accept voluntary undertakings from exporters to revise prices or to cease exports at dumped or subsidized prices. The implementing details are found in Articles 111–115 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE). A price undertaking may only be accepted:

• After a preliminary affirmative injury and dumping/subsidy finding (i.e., after the Secretariat has made a preliminary determination but before the final decision), and
• If the Secretariat concludes the undertaking will remove the injurious effect on the domestic industry.

Form and content. Undertakings must:

• Be offered in writing by the individual exporter or foreign producer;
• Specify the product, price, and minimum quantity or value where relevant;
• Set out monitoring requirements and verifiable reporting conditions; and
• Be assessed and published by the Secretariat in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) for transparency and enforceability.

Legal effect, termination, and breach. If the Secretaría accepts a price undertaking, the investigation is suspended (in part or in whole) for the exporter(s) concerned, but resumes if the undertaking is breached, withdrawn, or found insufficient. Article 115 RLCE provides that in case of breach, Mexico may immediately impose provisional or definitive duties retroactively from the date the breach occurred. Undertakings are not a right—the Secretariat may reject an offer if deemed unworkable (e.g., too many exporters, highly variable pricing, risk of circumvention, or monitoring inefficacy), or may require undertakings only from select exporters.

Publication, monitoring, and review. Accepted undertakings and reasons for acceptance/rejection are published in DOF. The Secretariat reserves the right to verify exported prices, demand periodic compliance reports, or conduct on-site exporter audits. As in other WTO members, Mexican law stipulates that price undertakings are available only where effective monitoring and enforcement is feasible, aligning with WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement Art. 8. Exporters subject to undertakings retain a right to full investigation and to judicial review of any administrative act (see appeal section).

Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 111–115 Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 72 Source: WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, Art. 8

Mexico's trade remedy regime permits ongoing administrative reviews (exámenes administrativos) of definitive antidumping and countervailing duties. These reviews differ from the mandatory five-year sunset reviews (see "Sunset reviews — procedimiento" section) and are designed to reassess the necessity, level, or application of existing duties in light of changed circumstances, new evidence, or errors in the original margin calculation. The governing authority is Articles 68-A, 71, and 73 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE) and Articles 109–110 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE).

Who can request an administrative review? Article 71 LCE allows any interested party—including domestic producers, importers, exporters, or foreign governments—to file a petition for review. The request must identify the specific measure in force and the grounds for review (changed facts, new information, errors, etc.). The Secretaría de Economía may also initiate a review ex officio if it detects a need to update the duty.

Types of reviews and triggers. Administrative reviews may be requested at any time after duties are imposed, but are most often triggered by:

• Claims of changed market conditions (e.g., input price shifts, restructuring, new facts on injury);
• Alleged errors or omissions in the original duty margin calculations;
• Requests to assess importer- or exporter-specific rates (sometimes called "circunstancias particulares");
• The emergence of new exporters that did not participate in the original investigation (see new exporter review section).

Procedure and timeline.

1. The petition must be supported by evidence and argumentation (RLCE Art. 109). The Secretaría assesses admissibility and may deny requests lacking substantive justification.
2. If admitted, the Secretaría notifies initiation in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) and allows parties to submit additional information/arguments.
3. The investigation generally follows the same procedural steps as the original determination, including submissions, verification, and a final resolution.
4. While the law instructs that the Secretaria resolve "promptly" (LCE Art. 71), there is no explicit statutory time limit; reviews often take many months. The duties subject to review remain in force until the conclusion of the review, unless or until modified by the final resolution.

Possible outcomes and legal consequences. The Secretaría may:

• Revoke, amend, or confirm the duty for one or more parties;
• Retroactively adjust the duty for shipments during the review period;
• Instruct customs (SHCP) to refund or collect additional duties, as applicable. RLCE Art. 110 provides for refund of excess duties paid, or collection of shortfalls, for the review window.

Distinction from sunset reviews. Unlike five-year reviews, administrative reviews may be initiated more flexibly and are aimed at adjusting—not simply terminating or renewing—measures in force.

Practical tip. Practitioners should monitor DOF for review notices, as these represent windows to submit evidence and revise duty liability. Requests should be carefully documented and timed with production and import cycles.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 68-A, 71, 73 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 109–110

Mexico’s trade-remedy system includes explicit mechanisms to address the circumvention of definitive antidumping and countervailing duties. Circumvention typically involves operations designed to evade duties by making minor modifications to merchandise, through shipment via third countries, superficial processing, or misdeclaration. Mexican law provides for special anti-circumvention (“elusión”) investigations and the extension of duties to the circumventing parties and goods.

Legal authority. The foundational legal basis is Article 89 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE), as amended. Article 89 authorizes the Secretaría de Economía to investigate practices intended to evade the application of imposed duties. This covers, for example, the slight modification of goods, misdeclaration of origin or classification, or the assembly of goods in third countries using parts or components from the country subject to the original duty, where the essential characteristics remain unchanged and the goal or effect is to sidestep measures already in force.

Initiation and process. Under LCE Article 89 and Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE) Articles 126–129, a circumvention investigation may be initiated:

• Ex officio by the Secretaría, or
• Upon petition by domestic producers (or other interested parties with standing).

The petition (or official act) must include evidence that:

1. Imports of goods similar to those covered by an existing duty are entering under conditions or routes reasonably considered designed to avoid payment of duties;
2. There is an effect of undermining or nullifying the remedial impact of the original measure.

The Secretaría issues a notice in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) announcing the initiation, naming the goods and the factual and legal basis for review, and invites interested parties to present arguments and evidence. The procedures largely mirror those of other trade-remedy investigations, including submission opportunities, verification, and publication of a reasoned outcome in the DOF.

Legal consequences. If circumvention is confirmed, the Secretaría may extend the scope of the original duties to the circumventing imports or to the parties involved. Retroactive application may occur to the date of investigation initiation. The extended measure is notified and enforced in the same manner as the original duty. The law also contemplates the extension of duties to “slightly modified” goods or goods assembled/processed in third countries when these schemes “lack substantial economic justification” outside of duty evasion.

Practical notes.

• Practitioners should monitor DOF for anti-circumvention investigation notices and resolutions.
• The critical factor is whether the key characteristics and use of the “new” or re-routed goods are essentially the same as those targeted by the original measure.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Art. 89 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 126–129

Mexico’s trade-remedy statutes and regulations set out explicit procedures for refunding (“reembolso” or “devolución”) antidumping and countervailing duties paid in excess, in error, or due to reversal of an earlier measure. These refund mechanisms are central for practitioners whose clients have deposited provisional duties, faced duty increases later adjusted, or prevailed on appeal.

Statutory trigger events. Refunds are authorized:

• When provisional (preliminary) duties are paid or secured and the final determination finds (a) no dumping or subsidy, or (b) a margin lower than the provisional duty—see LCE Art. 60, RLCE Art. 94.
• On reduction or elimination of definitive duties after administrative, sunset, or new-exporter review (LCE Arts. 69-B, 70, 73; RLCE Art. 110), or as a result of anti-circumvention investigations that narrow scope.
• Following a court, panel, or administrative decision nullifying or modifying a duty (LCE Art. 95).

Step-by-step refund process (RLCE Arts. 94–95, 110):

1. The Secretaría de Economía (SE) issues a resolution—typically published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF)—that triggers entitlement to a refund or release of security. This DOF publication is the initiator for recovery rights.
2. The importer or interested party submits an application for refund (“solicitud de devolución”) to the Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público (SHCP, customs authority), accompanied by:

• Proof of payment (aduana receipt or bank record),
• Copy of the SE resolution,
• Customs import documents (pedimento),
• Evidence that the applicant bore the duty cost directly (especially if the goods were later resold, as required by RLCE Art. 95),
• Any other documentation specified by SHCP forms or in the SE notice.

1. SHCP must review the application “sin demora” (without delay) and effect the refund or release. Where a guarantee (fianza) was posted, it is formally released; for cash deposits, the overpaid amount is reimbursed.
2. Refunds are retroactive to the effective coverage period of the resolution or court order, and the statute bars SHCP from exercising discretion on whether to grant eligible refunds—it must act once legal and documentary requirements are met (RLCE Art. 94).
3. If any step—time limit, evidence, or eligibility—is not specified in the LCE or RLCE, the general “reembolso” (refund) procedures of the Código Fiscal de la Federación apply. The statute itself does not establish a specific deadline for filing, but generic customs-law time bars could apply by default (typically five years from the triggering event, unless otherwise published—LCE silent; practitioners should confirm current SHCP guidance).

Terminology. Mexican law uses “devolución” (return or reimbursement) and “reembolso” (refund) interchangeably in this context (RLCE Arts. 94–95, 110), both referring to repayment of duties collected beyond what is ultimately owed.

Publication and practical notes.

• DOF publication of the SE resolution is the legal prerequisite for SHCP processing refund claims; practitioners should monitor both SE and DOF for refund-triggering events.
• Refunds are strictly conditioned by statute; SHCP must act once trigger criteria and evidence are met—there is no discretionary review beyond verification of compliance.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 60, 69-B, 70, 73, 95 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 94–95, 110

The ability of exporters, importers, domestic producers, foreign governments, and other stakeholders to participate in antidumping (AD), countervailing duty (CVD), and safeguard investigations is governed by a set of standing, notification, and procedural rights rules under Mexican law. The foundational authorities are the Ley de Comercio Exterior (LCE), especially Articles 50–53 and 65–67, and their regulatory implementation in the Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior (RLCE), Arts. 1, 13, 14, 67, 70–81, and 88–90.

**Who qualifies as an "interested party" (parte interesada)?** Article 50 of the LCE defines interested parties to include:

• Domestic producers of the like product (or their associations);
• Importers and exporters of the subject goods;
• Foreign producers of the subject goods;
• Trade or business associations, representing a significant proportion of these actors;
• The government of the exporting country (for subsidies/CVD cases, per Art. 50(II)).

Article 67 of the RLCE and the public notice of initiation further detail how interested parties must establish standing—typically by written submission supported by evidence of direct commercial interest, identity, and representation (RLCE Art. 67).

Key rights and procedural guarantees:

• Access to the administrative record: Interested parties (once registered by submitting a written appearance) have the right to access the non-confidential administrative file (expediente público) and to obtain non-confidential versions of principal filings (RLCE Art. 14).
• Right to make submissions: All interested parties may submit evidence, legal arguments, and data at the intervals specified in the notice of initiation and throughout the proceeding (RLCE Art. 67, Art. 72). Submission deadlines are set in the notice of initiation, and while a 28-day period is typical in practice, actual timeframes may vary as specified by the Secretaría in each case's public notice.
• Hearings and oral argument: Upon request, interested parties may be heard at oral hearings or present closing statements (RLCE Arts. 76–78). Participation in hearings is not automatic—interested parties must request and justify the hearing in writing within the procedural schedule.
• Access to confidential information: The LCE (Art. 80) and RLCE (Art. 13) set strict rules: parties filing confidential material must supply non-confidential summaries. Other interested parties may challenge confidentiality claims. The Secretaría retains authority to request clearer summaries or reject excessive confidentiality. Parties denied access to key evidence on which the resolution relies may challenge this in court.
• Notification and due process: All major procedural acts—initiation, preliminary and final determinations, imposition, or withdrawal of measures—must be notified to registered interested parties and published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (LCE Art. 93; RLCE Art. 14). Parties are entitled to sufficient advance notice and the opportunity to rebut or comment on adverse evidence.

Practical note: Standing must be perfected early: appear promptly upon notice of initiation, file supporting documentation (corporate evidence, power of attorney, evidence of interest) as per RLCE Art. 67, and monitor the DOF for deadlines. Failure to establish interested-party status restricts access and the ability to appeal.

Source: Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 50–53, 65, 66, 80, 93 Source: Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior, Arts. 13–14, 67, 70–81, 88–90