3. Standard of Review to be Applied by the Panel The standard of review applicable to this proceeding is also determined by NAFTA. This Panel must apply the standard of review set out in NAFTA Article 1904 (3) and Annex 1911. It is a two-part standard review. The first part is "the standard set out in Article 238 of the Federal Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal de la Federación), or any successor statutes, based solely on the administrative record". 56 Article 238 of the Federal Fiscal Code states: "Se declarará que una resolución administrativa es ilegal cuando se demuestre alguna de las siguientes causales: I. Incompetencia del funcionario que la haya dictado u ordenado o tramitado el procedimiento del que deriva dicha resolución. II. Omisión de os requisitos formales exigidos por las leyes, que afecte las defensas del particular y trascienda al sentido de la resolución impugrnada, inclusive la ausencia de fundamentación o motivación, en su caso. III. Vicios de procedimiento que afecten las defensas del particular, y trasciendan al sentido de la resolución impugnada. IV. Si los hechos que la motivaron no se realizaron, fueron distintos o se apreciaron en forma equivocada, o bien si se dictó en contravención de las disposiciones aplicadas, o dejó de aplicar las debidas. V. Cuando la resolución administrativa dictada en ejercicio de facultades discrecionales no corresponda a los fines para los cuales la ley confiera dichas facultades. El Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación podrá hacer valer de oficio, por ser de orden público, la incompetencia de la Autoridad para dictar la resolución impugnada y la ausencia total de fundamentación o motivación en dicha resolución." "An Administrative determination shall be declared illegal when one of the following grounds are demonstrated: I. Lack of competence of the official who issued, ordered, carried out the proceeding from which the said resolution is derived. II. Omission of the formal requirements provided by law, which affects an individual’s defences and impacts the result of the challenged resolution, including the lack of legal foundation or reasoning, as the case may be. III. Procedural errors which affect an individual’s defences and impact the result of the challenged resolution. IV. If the facts which underlie the resolution do not exist, are different or were erroneously weighed, or if (the resolution) was issued in violation of applicable legal provisions if the correct provisions were not applied. V. When an administrative determination issued in an exercise of discretionary powers does not correspond with the purposes for which the law confers the said powers. The Federal Fiscal Tribunal may declare sua sponte, because it is a matter of public order, the incompetence of the authority to render the challenged determination and the total absence of basis or motivation of this determination." 57 Under the second part of the standard of review, we may also consider: "los principios generales de derecho que de otro modo un tribunal de la Parte importadora aplicaría para revisar una resolución de la autoridad investigadora competente". "the general legal principles that a court of the importing Party otherwise would apply to a review of a determination of the competent investigating authority". 58 On the other hand, this Panel has jurisdiction to grant only those remedies that are authorized by NAFTA Article 1904 (8). This provision states: "El Panel podrá confirmar la resolución definitiva o devolverla a la instancia anterior con el fin de que se adopten medidas no incompatibles con su decisión." "The Panel may uphold a Final Determination, or remand it for action not inconsistent with the Panel’s decision". The Complainants have argued before this Panel that we must consider Article 239 of the Federal Fiscal Code as an integral part of the standard of review. It is noteworthy that a binational panel in a previous case accepted this point of view. 59 Nevertheless, this Panel respectfully disagrees with that position, because the inclusion of Article 239 in the standard of review would constitute an undue amplification of its jurisdiction and powers. This Panel is subject to the jurisdiction and powers established by Article 1904(8) of NAFTA, which empowers it to confirm SECOFI’s Final Determination, or to remand it. It does not empower it to nullify that resolution, a power which Article 239 specifically gives to the Federal Fiscal Court. Therefore, this Panel dismisses the arguments presented to it that Article 239 of the Federal Fiscal Code should be included in the standard of review of this Panel. If the governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada had intended to empower during the review proceeding, in the same way that the Federal Fiscal Court is under Article 239, they would have included that Article in the standard of review, and would have drafted Article 1904 (8) of NAFTA, in a different manner. In other words, this Panel is convinced that the present text of NAFTA does not give it the same jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Fiscal Court, so it must act according to the express limits of the jurisdiction conferred on it. 60 Therefore, this Panel believes the intention of the negotiating parties of NAFTA was to establish Article 238 of the Federal Fiscal Code as the only standard of review in the case of Mexico. This does not mean --as the Investigating Authority presumes-- that binational panels cannot interpret the legal content of that Article. While it is true that paragraph 2 of Article 1904 of NAFTA establishes that Panels must perform their duties in the same way as a Court of the importing party, this does not lead to the conclusion that they must apply, in a mechanical way, the causes of illegality included in Article 238. On the contrary, the application of this Article in an antidumping investigation is a complex procedure that raises issues that affect the national economy as a whole, commercial relations between two countries, national producers and workers, and importers of foreign products. This Panel cannot apply the standard of review as if it were dealing with administrative resolutions related to tax and other fiscal measures which consist, generally speaking, in matters of the State versus a person regarding with that person’s fiscal obligations. 61 In other words, a binational panel is always in a position to interpret the legal framework that governs it. When intepreting NAFTA, the Rules of Procedure or any other international legal instrument, the panel must follow the criteria included in Section 3, entitled INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 62 This contains three general rules of interpretation: good faith; the literal sense of the provisions, and; the object and ends of the corresponding treaty. Focusing on this last rule, the objectives of NAFTA are made clear in its Article 102. Paragraph 1, which establishes that NAFTA’s objectives must be developed in relation to its general principles which include those of national treatment, most favoured nation treatment and transparency. In addition, among those objectives is the following found in subrule e), to create effective proceedings for the implementation and application of this Agreement, for its joint administration and for the resolution of disputes. On the other hand, if the legal provisions on antidumping and countervailing duties of the Importing Party must be interpreted, as established by paragraph 2 of Article 1904, the binational panel must follow the interpretive rules that are commonly used by the jurisdictional bodies of the country in question. If this is not done, the principle of legal certainty of a state of law would be violated. 63 4. The Applicable Legal Framework to be Applied by the Panel The legal provisions that the Panel must apply in order to issue its decision according to paragraph 2 of Article 1904 in the matter of countervailing and antidumping duties, consist of the relevant statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative practice and judicial precedents, 64 to the extent that a court of the importing party would rely on such materials in reviewing a Final Determination. As was already pointed out in a previous paragraph, this Panel notes that in the Mexican legal system includes two regulatory schemes: the international, consisting of the provisions of NAFTA and other related provisions such as GATT and its Codes of Conduct; and the domestic, which consists of special legal provisions such as the Ley de Comercio Exterior 65 and its regulation, the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration (Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal ["LOAPF"]) that relates in matters of jurisdiction of the authorities, as well as the internal regulations of SECOFI and the delegatory directives that derive from these regulations. As well, this Panel believes that the legislative history contained in the archives of the Congress of the Union, including the reasons for the initiatives and decisions of the Houses, and the debates of the Members of Congress should be considered. Also to be considered are the administrative practices of the Executive branch pursuant to its delegated powers. These consist in the execution of material acts, or acts that decide individual legal cases. These are defined by the Mexican writer of treatises Gabino Fraga, 66 who refers to the administrative acts carried out by the State in the exercise of its powers, applicable to a specific case. Judicial precedents that a Panel in Mexico may or must apply are understood in two ways: those that imply a simple precedent or illustration, but do not bind the tribunal and cannot govern the determination of specific cases but rather may be cited as a persuasive reference, that have not attained the status of jurisprudencia. 67 In the opinion of Dr. Ignacio Burgoa, 68 "Jurisprudencia can be explained as the interpretation and construction of uniform legal considerations carried out by a judicial authority, empowered to this effect by the law, and regarding one or several special and determined points of law, that arise from a certain number of specific cases that are alike, considering that interpretations are binding on the hierarchical subordinates of the mentioned authorities, as are expressly mentioned by the law". This jurisprudencia is a source of Mexican Law, 69 since the Mexican legal system grants the thesis, presented in the determinations of certain judicial authorities, a binding character that should be observed by other judicial authorities of lower rank. For example, the jurisprudencia of the Supreme Court of Mexico which might be created by both the entire court or its chambers, compels the court itself, as well as the lower courts and that of the Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación that is created by the Superior Chamber. 70 In antidumping and countervailing cases, there is binding jurisprudence issued by the circuit courts, and the Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación by it superior chambers. In Mexico, jurisprudencia may provide law where there is a vacuum or lacuna in the law, but only to the extent that it fulfils the purpose of occupying the vacuum of law or lacuna. Finally, concerning the orders and final decisions issued by other Panels, it is clear from paragraph 9 of NAFTA Article 1904, that while these cannot be invoked as binding precedents, they may be referred to a useful guide in order to clarify certain issues. In summary, this is the legal framework that in accordance to paragraph 2, Article 1904 of NAFTA, a binational panel is obligated to apply in the same measure as a court of the importing party would do in order to decide if the determination of the investigating authority was issued in accordance to legal provisions in antidumping an countervailing matters. In the following paragraphs of this opinion, the Panel examines each one of the issues raised by the Complainants or arising in the review as well as the responses to these issues. The Panel has applied the standard of review in the terms defined above to each one of these issues and defences, and examines the way in which the intermediate acts of the Investigating Authority and the Final Determination would be declared illegal according to the standard of review, and will issue its decision in the terms allowed by Article 1904(8) of NAFTA. IV. JURISDICTION OF THE PANEL The Panel has jurisdiction to review the Final Determination issued by the Investigating Authority based on Articles 1904 and 1906 of NAFTA, and Articles 97 and 98 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior. V. ISSUES IN LITIGATION 1. JURISDICTION OF THE DIRECCIÓN GENERAL ADJUNTA TÉCNICA JURÍDICA TITAN, ALGOMA, STELCO and DOFASCO raised issues of competence individually through their Complaints in this Panel proceeding. These Complainants say that the Dirección General Adjunta Técnica Jurídica ("DGATJ") performed certain administrative acts in the conduct of the proceeding, despite the fact that it lacked competence to carry out those acts. They claim that under Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution the administrative unit carrying out those actions must have had competence to do so. Under Article 16, that competence requires that the acting authority be legally created by law or regulation and that the entity must only act in accordance with the express authority granted by Mexican law. They argue further that since these requirements were not fulfilled in this situation, the Final Determination should be declared illegal under paragraph I of Article 238 of the Federal Fiscal Code. The Investigating Authority, in turn, in its response and during the public hearing, argued that the DGATJ had legal existence, in terms of Mexican law, and was legally empowered to carry out its acts during the proceeding. The Panel believes that the issues of competence presented to it require a detailed analysis of the applicable legal provisions and the arguments raised by the parties. The main elements of this analysis will be reviewed in the following order Jurisdiction of the Administrative Authorities in the Framework of the Mexican Legal System Acts Specifically Challenged by the Companies Legal Existence and Powers of the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales Guidance from Amparo Judgments in Recent Years A. Jurisdiction of the Administrative Authorities in the Framework of the Mexican Legal System The LOAPF, which establishes the different departments and ministries, including SECOFI, specifies the jurisdiction and powers of subordinate entities within each ministry and secretariat. Articles 14, 16 and 18 of this law stated, at the relevant time: Artículo 14. — "Al frente de cada Secretaría habrá un Secretario de Estado, quien para el despacho de los asuntos de su competencia se auxiliará por los subsecretarios, oficial mayor, directores, subdirectores, jefes y subjefes de departamento, oficina, sección, mesa, y por los demás funcionarios que establezca el reglamento interior respectivo y otras disposiciones legales." Artículo 16. — "Corresponde originalmente a los titulares de las Secretarias de Estado y Departamentos Administrativos el trámite, y resolución de los asuntos de su competencia, pero para la mejor organización del trabajo podrán delegar en los funcionarios a que se refieren los artículos 14 y 15, cualesquiera de sus facultades, excepto aquellas que por disposición de la ley o del reglamento interior respectivo, deban ser ejercidas precisamente por dichos titulares... Los propios titulares de las Secretarías de Estado y Departamentos también podrán adscribir orgánicamente las unidades administrativas establecidas en el reglamento interior repectivo, a las subsecretarías, oficialía mayor, y a las otras unidades de nivel administrativo equivalente que se precisen en el mismo reglamento interior. Los acuerdos por los cuales se deleguen facultades o se adscriban unidades administrativas se publicarán en al Diario Oficial de la Federación." Artículo 18. — "En el reglamento interior de cada una de las Secretarías de Estado y Departamentos Administrativos, que será expedido por el Presidente de la República, se determinarán las atribuciones de sus unidades administrativas, así como la forma en que los titulares podrán ser suplidos en sus ausencias." Article 14. — "At the head of each Ministry, there shall be a Minister of State who will be assisted in matters under his jurisdiction by under secretaries, a chief of staff, directors, deputy directors, and directors and subdirectors of areas, offices, sections and subsections, and all other authorized persons mentioned in the appropriate internal regulation and in other legal provisions." Article 16. — "The Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments are responsible for the processing and resolution of matters within the jurisdiction of their respective ministries and agencies. However, in order to better organize their work, they may delegate any of their powers to the officials referred to in Articles 14 and 15, except for those powers that by law or in accordance with the respective internal regulation must be exercised personally by the Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments... The Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments may allocate organically the administrative units established in their respective internal regulations to the Under-secretaries, Chief of Staff, and other administrative units at an administrative level equivalent to those set out in such internal regulations. The agreements through which the powers are either delegated or granted to administrative units shall be published in the "Diario Oficial de la Federación." Article 18. — "The functions of the administrative units of the Ministries and administrative departments, together with the manner in which they can be substituted during absences, are determined by the internal regulations of each Ministry or Administrative Department, which will be issued by the President of the Republic." (Emphasis added) Thus, if an administrative unit within SECOFI is exercising powers, the functions of the unit must come from a "law" or from an "internal regulation" or "decree" issued by the President of the Republic. 71 A delegation of powers to an administrative unit must be published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. 72 Secretaries of State may delegate their powers, except those that must be exercised personally, to the heads of administrative units that have been lawfully created, and to other officials within those same units. 73 The LOAPF is based on, and implements, Article 90 of the Federal Constitution of Mexico, which states: Artículo 90. — "La Administración Pública Federal será centralizada y paraestatal, conforme a la ley orgánica que expida el Congreso, la cual distribuirá los negocios del orden administrativo de la Federación que estarán a cargo de las Secretarías de Estado..." Article 90. — "Federal Public Administration shall be centralized and decentralized according to the Organic Law issued by Congress, which shall distribute the business of the administrative order of the Federal Government, which shall be under the charge of the Secretaries of State..." In addition, Article 89 of the Constitution confers related powers on the President of the Republic: Artículo 89. — "Las facultades y obligaciones del Presidente son las siguientes: I. Promulgar y ejecutar las leyes que expida el Congreso de la Unión, proveyendo en las esfera administrativa a su exacta observancia; ..." Article 90. — "The power and duties of the President are the following: I. To promulgate and execute the laws enacted by the Congress of the Union providing for their exact observance in the administrative sphere; ..." Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled that only a law, or the President of Mexico, acting through an Internal Regulation or a decree, may create or establish legal organisms of public administration, as can be seen in the following thesis: "FACULTAD REGLAMENTARIA. INCLUYE LA CREACION DE AUTORIDADES Y LA DETERMINACION DE LAS QUE ESPECIFICAMENTE EJERCITARAN LAS FACULTADES CONCEDIDAS. Está dentro de la facultad concedida al Presidente de la República por el artículo 89, fracción I, de la Constitución, crear autoridades que ejerzan las atribuciones asignadas por la ley de la materia a determinado organismo de la administración pública; igualmente, se encuentra dentro de dicha facultad el determinar las dependencias u órganos internos especializados a través de los cuales se deben ejercer las facultades concedidas por la ley a un organismo público... Además, al tratarse de un organismo que forma parte de la administración pública, aun cuando sea un organismo descentralizado, es precisamente el Presidente de la República, titular de esa administración pública, quien constitucionalmente está facultado para determinar los órganos internos que ejercerán las facultades otorgadas por la ley, a efecto de hacer posible el cumplimiento de ésta." "THE REGULATORY POWER ENCOMPASSES THE POWER TO CREATE AUTHORITIES AND TO DETERMINE WITH PRECISION THOSE THAT WILL EXERCISE GIVEN POWERS. It is within the regulatory power bestowed by Article 89 Section 1 of the Constitution on the President of the Republic, to create authorities which exercise the powers assigned by an applicable law to a particular organ of public administration. Similarly, it is within that power to determine the entities or specialized internal bodies through which the powers given to public bodies are to be exercised. . . . Furthermore, where a body which is part of the public administration is involved, even if it is a decentralized entity, it is precisely the President of the Republic, head of public administration, who is empowered by the Constitution to determine the internal organs which will exercise the powers granted by the law, in order to carry out such law." 74 According to this thesis, there is a serious question whether the DGATJ had legal existence as an independent legal entity within SECOFI. The DGATJ is not expressly mentioned in any law or in any internal regulation or decree issued by the President of the Republic. The Investigating Authority argues, however, that according to Mexican law, general directorates can be created in generic form in the laws issued by Congress, especially by the LOAPF in Article 14. 75 This Panel disagrees with this argument by the Investigating Authority, because the Supreme Court and other Mexican courts have clearly established the requirement that the existence of an administrative authority must be provided expressly in a law, internal regulation or decree of the President. It is incorrect to conclude that administrative authorities can be created in a generic form. This requirement has been ratified in recent years in several amparo proceedings by the Fourth Federal District Judge of the Federal District. The federal judge granted protection under the amparo law to several US steel exporters against a Final Determination issued by SECOFI in an antidumping investigation. 76 In these amparo proceedings, the companies argued the lack of competence of two administrative units of SECOFI (the Dirección General de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales ["DGPCI"] and the Dirección de Cuotas Compensatorias ["DCC"]). In his decisions the federal judge confirmed the lack of competence of both units because they were not expressly contained in a legal document. 77 SECOFI, however, also argued in its brief and in the public hearing that all the acts challenged by the Complainants were acts carried out by the International Trade Practices Unit or UPCI, the administrative unit with competence to conduct antidumping investigations, and that the director of the DGATJ acted on behalf of UPCI with express delegation of powers by UPCI. 78 The Complainants argued that no official or administrative unit could act on behalf of another administrative unit, or be delegated powers to act on its behalf, unless it expressly had legal existence in some legal provision. Regarding this issue, this Panel believes that an interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 of the LOAPF permit it to reach the conclusion that an administrative unit, lawfully established and with competence to act in certain areas can validly delegate certain powers to officials (funcionarios) who belong to the same administrative unit which delegates. To this extent it is possible for the director of the DGATJ to have acted lawfully as a delegate of UPCI. In support of this conclusion this Panel will examine: B) the specific acts challenged by the companies; C) the legal existence and powers of the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (UPCI); and D) guidance from past amparo decisions in recent years. B. Acts Specifically Challenged by the Companies The specific acts as shown in the administrative record are of the following types: Resolutions accepting the petition of the domestic industry and several notifications informing of the initiation of the antidumping proceeding; 79 Resolutions acknowledging the receipt of various pleadings and submissions from the Complainants, AHMSA, HYLSA, and other interested parties; 80 Notices sent to the exporters informing them of the initiation of the antidumping proceeding, and enclosing an antidumping questionnaire. In addition, these notifications purported to state a deadline by which a response to the questionnaire was required and warned of certain consequences if responses were not submitted; 81 Resolutions granting a deferral for submitting information; 82 Resolutions requiring additional information; 83 Resolutions giving notification of the Preliminary Determination; 84 Notifications regarding access to confidential information; 85 Notifications regarding the treatment and classification of privileged information, and several resolutions refusing to grant the treatment of privilege to information submitted; 86 Notifications informing all interested parties of the date for the public hearing; 87 and Notifications informing all the interested parties of the Final Determination. 88 All of the above documents in these categories begin by identifying the following entity: "UNIDAD DE PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES INTERNACIONALES". In some of these documents, the following name is added to the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales: "DIRECCIÓN GENERAL ADJUNTA TÉCNICA JURÍDICA" In all of the notifications regarding the Final Determination, the following name is added to the name of the two former administrative entities: "DIRECCIÓN DE PROCEDIMIENTOS Y PROYECTOS"   Continuation: C. Legal Existence and Powers of the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales 56 NAFTA, Annex 1911. 57 This last paragraph of Article 238 was inserted through ammendment published in the Diario Oficial on December 5, 1995, and entered into force on January 1, 1996. 58 NAFTA, Article 1904 (3). 59 See: the Final Decision MEX-94-1904-02. 60 For similar reasons, Article 237 of the Federal Fiscal Code is not part of the standard of review that this Panel must apply. 61 As an example, recall the economic implications that can be found in paragraph II of Article 238 of the Federal Fiscal Code, implications to which this Panel refers in section V on Issues in Litigation, subsection 5, which corresponds to "Extemporaneiety of the Issuance of the Preliminary and Definitive Resolutions". 62 This important instrument of international law is part of Mexican positive law, since, according to the applicable constitutional and legal provisions, was adopted by Mexico on May 23, 1969, was ratified on September 25, 1974, and was published in the Diario Oficial on February 14, 1975. It entered into force on January 27, 1980. 63 The criteria or methods of legal interperetation most commonly used in Mexico are: the logical, the systematical, the authentical and the causal teleological. For more details See: Ignacio Burgoa, Las Garantías Individuales, México, Porrúa, 1991, pp. 575 y 576. 64 It is evident that article 1904 excludes the Constitution of each country, that consequently cannot be an applicable provision in matters of countervailing and antidumping duties, since article 1911 contains it in the definition of internal law, but it is only established for the purposes of article 1905.1, this means it is invoked only for the effects of the safeguard of the review system. So the Constitution should not be a direct source of the grounds that the Panel uses to issue its final decision. 65 It is important to note that the Código Fiscal de la Federación might eventually become a part of the legislation whose compliance must be safeguarded by the Panel, to the extent that article 85 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior recognises in it a supplementary character in the following terms: "In the absence of an express provision in this law in what relates to administrative procedures in the matter of unfair international trade practices and safeguard measures, supplementary the Código Fiscal will be applied, in accordance with the nature of this proceeding. This provision will not be applied in what relates to notices and verification visits". 66 Fraga Gabino, Derecho Administrativo. Mexico, Porrúa, 1968, at 62. 67 Jurisprudencia is to be distinguished from the principle in the common law known as stare decisis. Jurisprudencia, when established, is binding on a court of coordinate or lower rank in the judicial hierarchy. When established, it is also a source of Mexican law. Jurisprudencia is established when a certain number of specific decisions of a judicial authority designated by law to have the effect, are alike with respect to one or more points of law. 68 Burgoa Ignacio, El Juicio de Amparo. Mexico, Porrúa, 1981, at 819. 69 See: García Maynez, Eduardo. Introducción al Estudio del Derecho. Mexico, Porrúa, 1992. at 68. 70 Art. 260 of the CFF. 71 LOAPF, Article 16, 18. 72 Ibid., Article 16. 73 Ibid., Article, 14, 16. 74 Segunda Sala. Semanario Judicial de la Federación. 8a. época, tomo III, primera parte, p. 277. Amparo en revisión 6458/85. Francisco Javier Vázquez Balderas. 10. de febrero de 1989. 5 votos. Ponente: Manuel Gutiérrez de Velasco. Secretaria: Rosalba Becerril Velázquez. Amparo en revisión 1129/88. Compañía Mexicana de Ingeniería, Sociedad Anónima. 8 de junio de 1988. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Atanasio González Martínez. Secretaria: Alicia Rodríguez Cruz de Blanco (8a. época, tomo I, primera parte 1, p. 223). Amparo en revisión 480/84. Compañía Minera Río Colorado, S. A. 23 de agosto de 1984. Unanimidad de 4 votos. Ausente: Santiago Rodríguez Roldán. Ponente: Carlos del Río Rodríguez. Secretaria: Diana Bernal Ladrón Guevara (7a. época, vols. 187-192, tercera parte, p. 65) 75 This same position was adopted by the Binational Panel in Case MEX-96-1904-03. For the reasons offered above, this panel respectfully disagrees with this opinion. 76 See:, Amparos 193/93; 194/93 y 195/93 77 One of these amparo decisions has recently been upheld on appeal. The court in this appeal upheld an amparo based on the lack of competence of the administrative unit because it was not listed in the applicable Internal Regulation of SECOFI. Quinto Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Administrativa del Primer Circuito. Amparo en revisión 3005/94 (Amparo Decision No. 194/93), June 24, 1996 78 See: the English version of the transcript of the Public Hearing, pp. 74, ff. 79 See: Administrative Record, CV, Nos. 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 110, 112 y 114. 80 Ibid., Nos. 118, 148, 150, 151, 154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 171, 173, 176, 178, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 193, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 210, 214, 215, 235, 247, 248, 251, 253, 255, 256, 261, 263, 265, 268, 272, 304, 306, 313, 316, 318, 320, 480, 482, 505, 514, 565, 567, 584, 618, 630, 634, 635, 638, 676, 679, 687, 689, 691, 693, 698, 702, 704, 706, 711, 742, 745 y 747. 81 Ibid., Nos. 213, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227, 229, 232 y 233. 82 Ibid.,Nos. 115, 179 y 213. 83 See: the Administrative Record, Public Version ("PV"), Nos. 302, 303, 308, 309, 310, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, 366, 369, 373, 375, 377, 379, 383 and 384. 84 Ibid., Nos. 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 428, 430 and 432. 85 See: Administrative Record, CV, Nos. 238 and 241. 86 Ibid., Nos. 243, 244 and 245. 87 See: the Administrative Record, PV, Nos. 644, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 662 and 663. 88 Ibid., 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740 and 741.