WT/REG345/2
17 September 2014
(14-5182)  Page: 1/5
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish
 
  FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEXICO AND URUGUAY 
(GOODS) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 The following communication, dated 8 September 2014, is being circulated at the request 
of the delegations of Mexico and Uruguay.  
_______________ 
   This document reproduces the questi ons addressed to the Parties and the 
responses submitted. 
 Questions from the delegation of the EU 
 CHARACTERISTIC ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT Background Information 
 
Page 7, paragraph 2.2: The report of the Se cretariat refers to the fact that the FTA 
between Mexico and Uruguay does not apply to automotive products or petroleum. 
1.1.   The report indicates that trade in au tomotive products between Mexico and 
Uruguay is governed exclusively by the partial scope agreement between Mexico and 
MERCOSUR known as the Economic Comple mentation Agreement No. 55 (ACE 55) and 
its protocols". Could the parties provide more  details on the regulation of trade in 
automotive products between Mexico and Uruguay? 
In accordance with Article 1-07 of the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay, "Trade in 
automotive goods included in the ACE 55 and the Additional Protocols thereto shall be governed 
exclusively by the provisions of those inst ruments". The ACE 55 was signed by Mexico 
and Uruguay in 2002 in the framework of the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) and entered into force in January 2003. Under the Agreement and the Additional Protocols thereto, trade in light vehicles between the Parties is duty-free as of July 2011. Moreover, duty-free 
treatment is given to a list of automobile pa rts of around 400 tariff lines (Mexican tariff). 
1.2.   Could the parties clarify what is the re gime applicable to trade in petroleum 
between Mexico and Uruguay? 
In accordance with Article 1-06 of the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay, "Trade in 
petroleum is exempted from the provisions of  the Agreement and shall be governed by the 
respective legislation in force in both Parties". In other words, each Party will apply its existing 
domestic legislation. 
1.3.   Could the parties clarify whether there ar e any plans to further liberalise trade 
between Mexico and Uruguay or between Mexico and MERCOSUR in these two sectors? 
At present, there are no concrete plans to further liberalize trade in these sectors 
(the petroleum and automotive sectors). However, this does not rule out the possibility that the WT/REG345/2 
- 2 - 
  Parties may at any time, at their convenience, decide to undertake negotiations in these and 
other sectors. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
Relationship with other agreements concluded by the Parties 
Uruguay (as a member of MERCOSUR) and Me xico are also Parties to two Agreements 
between MERCOSUR and Mexico in the context of the LAIA, which entered into force in 2006: The Agreement No. 54 (LAIA, AAP. CE No. 54) and the Agreement No. 55 
(LAIA, AAP. CE No. 55). 
1.4.   Could the parties clarify how does the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay relate 
to these agreements? 
The ACE 54 is a framework agreement between MERCOSUR and Mexico aimed at liberalizing 
trade. Article 2 of the Agreement states that agre ements that have been or will be signed by 
Mexico and each of the States party to MERCOSUR  in the framework of the LAIA, the Automotive 
Agreement between MERCOSUR and Mexico, and ag reements between MERCOSUR and Mexico in 
the framework of the ACE 54 and the LAIA, form  part of the Agreement. Therefore, these 
agreements form part of the general framework established in the ACE 54. 
With respect to the relationship between the ACE 60 and the ACE 55, these agreements are 
complementary, as the goods that are covered by one agreement are not covered by the other. 
Specifically, Article 1-07 of the ACE 60 states that trade in automotive goods included in the ACE 55 and the Additional Protocols thereto will be governed exclusively by the provisions of those instruments. 
1.5.   Could the parties describe how do the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay and 
these agreements compare in te rms of trade liberalisation? 
As mentioned above, trade liberalization between  Mexico and Uruguay is based on two legal 
instruments, the ACE 60 and ACE 55, which come under the ACE 54 framework. Therefore, trade 
liberalization between the countries occurs under the ACE 55 for goods from the automotive sector and under the ACE 60 for other goods. 
1.6.   Could the parties clarify whether there ar e any plans to further deepen in the 
future trade liberalisation under the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay and/or under 
these agreements? 
The Administrative Commission of the ACE 60 and the Automotive Committee of the ACE 55 
are the fora in which the Parties analyse the f unctioning of the Agreement. The possibility of 
further deepening liberalization based on the interests of both countries has not been ruled out. 
Questions from the delegation of Thailand 
 
PROVISIONS ON TRADE IN GOODS Regulatory provisions on trade in goods 
Standards 
Technical barriers to trade  Page 21, Paragraph 3.49: "… In addition, under the Agreement the Parties commit to 
inform each other of their programs with re spect to standards, technical regulations or 
conformity assessment procedures and to keep  a list of their measures (available upon 
request). A Party will also allow the participat ion of non-governmental persons from the 
other Party in the development of its meas ures, when it allows the participation 
of non-governmental persons from its own territory (Article 9.7)". 
 
1.7.   Please provide detail on the participatio n of non-governmental persons from the 
other Party in the development of its measures? How to participate? WT/REG345/2 
- 3 - 
  The participation of non-governmental persons from the territory of the other Party 
in the development of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures 
concerns technical staff, manufacturer organizati ons, service providers, traders, agricultural, 
forestry or fishery producers, scientific or tec hnological research centres, professional colleges 
and consumers, etc., that are knowledgeable in the field that will be regulated in the 
standardization measure. 
In order to facilitate this participation, the Parties agreed – in Article 9-07, paragraph 3, 
of the Mexico-Uruguay FTA – to annually inform  the other Party of their plans and programmes 
with respect to standardization-related measures, so that it may express its desire to participate in the development of measures of interest to it. In this regard, the Parties have defined the way in which these persons would participate in the committees or working groups set up to develop 
standardization-related measures. 
In short, it is a procedure related to the application of "good practices" in the field. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
Dispute settlement 
 Page 27, Paragraph 4.11: "The Agreement provides for a mechanism for the settlement 
of disputes between the Parties (Chapter 18) and between a Party and an investor of the 
other Party (Chapter 13, Section C). Unle ss specified otherwise in the Agreement, 
Chapter 18 applies to any dispute between the Parties related to the interpretation or application of the Agreement or wherever a Party considers that an actual measure of 
the other Party: 
 
- is inconsistent with its obligations; or 
 
- nullifies or impairs the benefits that coul d have resulted from the application of 
Chapters 3-10 and Chapter 15 (on Intellectual Property) (Articles 18.1 and 
Annex 18.1)". 
 
1.8.   Could Mexico and Uruguay please advise whether the nullification or impairment 
of benefits is a prerequisite for a violation complaint to be successful? 
Annex 18.01 (Nullification or Impairment) provides that recourse may be taken to the 
dispute settlement mechanism in Chapter 18 when a Party applies a measure that, while not inconsistent with the Agreement, is considered by the other Party to nullify or impair the benefits it 
could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under Chapters III to X and Chapter XV of the 
Agreement. In light of the above, nullification or  impairment cannot be considered a prerequisite 
for a violation complaint to be successful. On the contrary, if a violation exists, it is understood 
that there is a presumption of nullification or impairment, as established under Article 3.8 of 
the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. 
1.9.   For the non-violation complaint, could Mexico and Uruguay please advise the 
policy reasons why the area of intellectual pr operty rights is included in this type 
of claim? Is there any safeguard for a me asure in pursuit of public interests, 
especially from the public health perspective? 
The nullification and impairment clause has b een incorporated in various trade agreements, 
including the FTA between Mexico and Uruguay and the TRIPS Agreement. 
Mexico and Uruguay are aware of the debate surrounding this issue at the WTO. If, as 
a result of this debate, the Parties feel it necessary to amend the Agreement, the Agreement 
contains provisions that make this possible. 
As to the second part of the question, the chapter on intellectual property includes specific 
exemptions for certain types of duties (for example, Article 15.16 of the FTA refers to, inter alia , 
Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement). WT/REG345/2 
- 4 - 
  GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
Government procurement  Page 31, Paragraph 4.18: "The Parties agree to include a chapter on Government 
Procurement by 2006 (Article 20.4). The Parties indicated that negotiations in this area 
are still ongoing".  
1.10.   Do negotiations on Government Proc urement include chapters on market 
access, transparency, non-disc rimination and cooperation? 
Yes, they include the aspects mentioned in the question. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
Intellectual property rights 
Main Principles  
Page 31, Paragraph 4.21: "The Parties commit to grant MFN treatment to each other 
with respect to protection of intellectual property, but subject to almost the same 
exceptions of Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreem ent (Article 15.4). Moreover, under Article 4 
of the TRIPS Agreement, commitments on IP Rs (with some exceptions) taken under the 
Agreement must be extended to all WTO Members".  
1.11.   Paragraph 4.21 states that "…Moreover, under Article 4 of the 
TRIPS Agreement, commitments on IPRs (with some exceptions) taken under the 
Agreement must be extended to all WTO members". Please explain why the 
commitments under IP Chapter of the Agreement cannot be extended to other 
WTO members. 
Paragraph 4.21 alludes to the exceptions that  Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement already 
establishes with respect to the most-favoured nation principle. Under this Article, WTO Members 
are not obliged to extend to other Members the advantages, favours, privileges or immunities: 
a. deriving from international agreements on judicial assistance or law enforcement of 
a general nature and not particularly confined to the protection of intellectual property; 
b. granted in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention (1971) or the Rome 
Convention authorizing that the treatment accorded be a function not of national 
treatment but of the treatment accorded in another country; 
c. in respect of the rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting 
organizations not provided under this Agreement; 
The exception under Article 4(d) of the TR IPS Agreement (grandfather clause) was not 
included in the Agreement, as it was signed on 15 November 2003. 
In short, the Mexico-Uruguay FTA does not create exceptions to the "most-favoured nation" 
principle that go beyond the provisions of th e TRIPS Agreement. Paragraph 4.21, mentioned by 
Thailand, states that the legal framework regarding the Parties' intellectual property could not extend the advantages of the Mexico-Uruguay FTA to other WTO Members to the extent authorized 
by Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
Intellectual property rights 
Geographical indications 
 Page 32, Paragraph 4.28: "The Parties commi t to protect each other's geographical 
indications (GIs), including their appella tions of origin (Article 15.22). Uruguay 
recognizes the following Mexican GIs (appellati on of origin): "Tequila" and "Mezcal"". 
 WT/REG345/2 
- 5 - 
  1.12.   Paragraph 4.28 refers to the Parties' co mmitment for GI protections, including 
appellations of origins and Ur uguay recognizes the following Mexican GIs: "Tequila" 
and "Mezcal". Are the two Mexican GIs subjec ted to national procedures in order to 
be protected in Uruguay? If so, please pr ovide the actual (full) names of the two 
Mexican GIs protected in Uruguay. Is ther e any Uruguay's GI to be protected or 
recognized under the Agreement? 
Uruguay recognizes both appellations of origin. Only the GI "Tequila" is registered in 
Uruguay. No Uruguayan GIs are protected or recognized under the Agreement. 
Question from the delegation of Peru 
 
Provisions on trade in goods 
Regulatory provisions on trade in goods 
Standards Technical barriers to trade  
 
1.13.   Paragraph 3.50: How will the confidential ity of information regarding products 
in connection with conformity assessment pr ocedures be determined if indeed the 
Parties can refuse to release information? 
In Mexico, the Federal Law on Transparency and Access to Government Public Information 
and the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Individuals define classified and confidential information. Mexico also has a Law on Industrial Property, which provides for the 
protection of industrial secrets. 
 
In Uruguay, the Law on Access to Public Information (No 18.381) stipulates that any 
information held by public agencies, regardless of whether they are State agencies or not, will be 
public, excluding the exceptions established by law and classified or confidential information. This classified or confidential designation must always be made by way of a substantiated 
resolution by the relevant administrative authority. 
 
__________