WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/13 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/13 1 November 2004 
 
(04-4618) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 
AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Replies to the Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1 
Regarding the Notification of MEXICO2 
   The following communication, dated 28 October 2004, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Mexico. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Question
 
 
1. Has Mexico yet initiated any cases that are being conducted in accordance with the 2003 amendments to the Foreign Trade Act (the "Decree")?  If so, please list those cases. 
 
Reply
 
 
 Yes.  Investigations initiated since the publi cation of the amendments to the Foreign Trade 
Act in the Official Journal of the Federation (13 March 2003) have been  conducted in accordance 
with the updated Act.  Cases initiated by Mexico in this respect are listed in its semi-annual reports to 
the Anti-Dumping Committee. 
 
Question  
 
2. Are revisions being made to the Regulations of the Foreign Trade Act to reflect the 2003 
amendments?  If so, when does Mexico anticipate that the revised Regulations will be notified to 
the WTO?  
Reply
 
 
 The Regulations of the Foreign Trade Act are being revised in order to bring them into line 
with the 2003 amendments to the Act.  The revised Regulations will be notified to the WTO once they 
have been published in the Official Journal of th e Federation, as was the case with Mexico's Foreign 
Trade Act.  
 
Question  
 
3. In its responses to questions from the United States and other countries, Mexico has 
asserted that international treaties apply automa tically.  Furthermore, in its reply to Chile, 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/12-G/SCM/Q1/MEX/12. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1. G/ADP/Q1/MEX/13 
G/SCM/Q1/MEX/13 Page 2 
 
 
Mexico asserted that "[p]ursuant to the Mexican legal system, international agreements (such as 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement) ta ke precedence over federal laws.
3  What are the specific 
sources in Mexican law that establish the supremac y of international treaties over federal laws?  
How is this consistent with Article 133 of th e Mexican Constitution, which appears to place 
federal laws and international treaties on an equal footing.4 
 
Reply  
 
 No reply is given to this question, as this is a matter being discussed in dispute settlement 
proceedings brought by the United States. 
 
Question  
 
4. With regard to Article 31 of the Decree, has Mexico ever made anti-dumping determinations on the basis of third country pric es?  If so, did the administering authority use 
the "highest [representative] price" in its calcul ation of normal value?  Please identify all cases 
in which this was done.  
Reply
 
 
 So far, no determinations have been made on the basis of use of the highest representative 
third-country price to calculate normal value in investigations having led to anti-dumping measures. 
 
Question  
 
5. The United States appreciates Mexico's clar ification of some issues previously raised 
regarding Article 86 and notes that Mexico has pointed out that the administering authority’s 
application of Article 86 is discretionary, rath er than obligatory.  However, assuming that 
Article 86 was not enacted with the intention that it never be used, the United States would 
appreciate Mexico's further clarification of how th is provision would, if applied, be consistent 
with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,  which prohibits disclosure of confidential 
information without the specific permission of the party submitting it?  If the administering authority determined to report the possible exis tence of monopolistic practices to the antitrust 
authority, what documentation would it provide to the antitrust authority?  In this circumstance, would the administering authority h ave an obligation or option of also notifying 
the party suspected of monopolistic practices? 
 
Reply
 
 
 As it did in its response to Question 12 fr om Chile in document G/ADP/Q1/MEX/10, Mexico 
points out that "Article 86 of the Foreign Trade Act does not  oblige the investigating authority to 
make confidential information available to the antitrus t authority, only to report the possible existence 
of monopolistic practices", and such confidential in formation would therefore not be made public.  
                                                      
3 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/10-G/SCM/Q1/MEX/10, p. 7, reply to Question 17. 
 4 Artículo 133. Esta Constitución, las leyes del Congreso de la Unión que emanen de ella y todos los 
tratados que estén de acuerdo con la misma, celebrados y que se celebren por el Presidente de la República, con 
aprobación del Senado, serán la Ley Suprema de toda la Unión.  C ONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS MEXICANOS . 
 
Article 133.  This Constitution, the laws of the Co ngress of the Union which flow from it and all 
treaties that may be in accord with the same, executed by  the President of the Repub lic, with the approval of the 
Senate, shall be the Supreme La w of the whole Union.   M EX. CONST .  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/13 
 G/SCM/Q1/MEX/13 
 Page 3 
 
 Nor would there be any need, therefore, to no tify the party allegedly engaged in monopolistic 
practices and the action taken by the Mexican investig ating authority would not be inconsistent with 
Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.     Question
 
 
6. In its response to Question 10, Mexico stated: 
 
Under Article 40 of the Foreign Trade Act, when all of the producers are related 
to the exporters or importers, Mexico may  take as the domestic industry the 
manufacturers of the goods produced during the immediately preceding stage in the same continuous line of production, and will do so provided that the goods in question meet the criteria set out in Arti cle 2.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
This Article is therefore consistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
(emphasis in original).  Could Mexico indicate: 
 
(a) the considerations its authority examin es in deciding whether to exercise its 
discretion to define the manufacturers of the goods produced during the immediately preceding stage in the same continuous line of production as the 
domestic industry;  and  
 
(b) whether, in determining whether "the goods in question meet the criteria set out 
in Article 2.6 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement", its authority disregards that 
there is a domestically-produced article produced at the same stage of 
production as the imported articles under investigation. 
 
Reply
 
  Although substantially identical to former Article 40 of the Foreign Trade Act, this Article has not been used by the Mexican investigating authority, so that there is as yet no implementation 
criterion in this regard. 
 
__________