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 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.

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