BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW
PURSUANT TO
THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Article 1904

IN THE MATTER OF:

Imports of Cut-to-Length Plate Products from the United States
(Continued)

E. Article 238(1)

I. Incompetencia del funcionario que la haya dictado u ordenado o tramitado el procedimiento del que deriva dicha resolución.

Article 238(1) pertains to the issue of incompetence or lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the constitutional provisions that form the basis of Article 238(1) and to the express language of Article 239, a finding of incompetence requires the reviewing court to declare the administrative resolution in question a "nullity." The court must order that the resolution be quashed and the proceeding terminated, without consideration of any challenges to the substance or merits of the resolution. Under Mexican law, incompetence, as contemplated by Article 238(1), may involve either (i) incompetence of the agency or official who issued or ordered the resolution in question; or (ii) incompetence of the agency or official which carried out the proceeding in which the resolution was issued. Competence—or incompetence—will normally be shown through an examination of the internal regulations of the agency in question, since these regulations have as their raison d’être the creation of subordinate administrative units and the specific functions which are to be attributed to those units. The publication in the applicable official gazette (i.e., the D.O.) of the language ¹⁰⁰ creating or establishing the agency in question and its attributes is central to any analysis of competence.¹⁰¹ Issues of competence, and the scope of Article 238(1), are also said to be involved in the following situations: ¹⁰²

An exercise of authority by a superior agency or official with respect to functions that legally pertain to an inferior agency or official, or an exercise of authority by inferior agencies or officials with respect to functions that legally pertain to their superiors; An exercise of authority concerning functional areas over which the agency or official has not been granted competence, as when such agency or official exercises functions that have been granted to another agency with which it has no hierarchical ties; An exercise of authority over a geographical area, as when an agency or official exercises authority outside the geographical area legally assigned to it; and An exercise of authority in terms of time, as when decisions are taken by officials who no longer have authority to issue acts.

It is important to emphasize that incompetence or lack of jurisdiction is an issue of constitutional dimension and directly invokes the constitutional legal guarantees discussed above. For an act of an administrative agency or official to be constitutional, it is an essential requirement that such agency or official be vested with competent jurisdiction and authority. The Supreme Court has observed that this issue invokes the basic concept of public order and requires that allegations of this nature be examined exhaustively by a reviewing court. The "jurisprudencia" of the Fiscal ¹⁰³ Tribunal, an example of which is quoted below, accords with this view:¹⁰⁴

COMPETENCIA. SU FUNDAMENTACIÓN ES REQUISITO ESENCIAL DEL ACTO DE AUTORIDAD.-

JURISDICTION. PROVIDING A BASIS FOR IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR AN ACT OF AN AUTHORITY.-

Haciendo una interpretación armónica de las garantías individuales de legalidad y seguridad jurídica que consagran los artículos 14 y 16 constitucionales, se advierte que los actos de molestia y privación deben, entre otros requisitos, ser emitidos por autoridad competente y cumplir las formalidades esenciales que les den eficacia jurídica, lo que significa que todo acto de autoridad necesariamente debe emitirse por quien para ello esté facultado expresándose, como parte de las formalidades esenciales, el carácter con que se suscribe y el dispositivo, acuerdo o decreto que otorgue tal legitimación. De lo contrario, se dejaría al afectado en estado de indefensión, ya que al no conocer el apoyo que faculta a la autoridad para emitir el acto, ni el carácter con que lo emita, es evidente que no se le otorga la oportunidad de examinar si su actuación se encuentra o no dentro del ámbito competencial respectivo, y es conforme o no a la Constitución o a la ley; para que, en su caso, esté en aptitud de alegar, además de la ilegalidad del acto, la del apoyo en que se funde la autoridad para emitirlo, pues bien puede acontecer que su actuación no se adecue exactamente a la norma, acuerdo o decreto que invoque, o que éstos se hallen en contradicción con la ley fundamental o la secundaría.

Making the harmonious interpretation of the individual garanties of legallity and juridical security that are stablished in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, It follows that legal acts which affect an individual or deprived him of a right [actos de molestia y privación] must, among other requirements, be issued by a competent authority and comply with the essential formalities that give legal efficay to the acts, which means that every act of authority must be issued by the person who is authorize to perform the act expressing, as part of the essential formalities, the capacity in which the person issuing the act of authority is acting and the disposition, order or decree that grants such authority. If this is not done, it would leave the affected party without a defense, since without knowing the source of the authority’s power to issue the act, nor the capacity in which the act is issued, it is evident that the affected party will not have opportunity to evaluate whether or not the authority’s actions are included within the ambit of his respective competence, or whether or not the actions are in conformance with the Constitution or the law, so that, if relevant, he should be able to allege, besides the illegality of the act, the illegality of the support upon which the authority bases its authority to issue the act, since it may happen that the authority’s actions do not conform exactly to the norm, order or decree that he invokes, or that these are in conflict with the Constitution or laws.

The Panel notes that the Investigating Authority made very much the same point in its Reply Brief:

The issuance of any act of "molestia" must be carried out by public officials competent to exercise those functions. In order for public officials to be competent in this regard, it is necessary that the administrative unit to which he has been assigned to have been formally established in law and that the public official act within the sphere of the attributes and functions which have been expressly conferred. Reply Brief, at page 30.

This means that a public official may only carry out those functions and activities that he has been expressly authorized by law to do.¹⁰⁵ Finally, in Mexican law the fact that a person has voluntarily submitted to an incompetent act does not vitiate the defect. One may not consent to a constitutional violation. ¹⁰⁶

F. Article 238(2)

II. Omisión de los requisitos formales exigidos por las leyes, que afecte las defensas del particular y trascienda al sentido de la resolución impugnada, inclusive la ausencia de fundamentación o motivación, en su caso.

Although Article 238(2) could also involve constitutional concerns, pursuant to Article 239, the Fiscal Tribunal will normally not consider a violation of Article 238(2) as necessitating a declaration that the resolution in question is a "nullity." Instead, the court will remand the resolution back to the agency for correction of the errors found. This permits the proceeding itself to continue. According to the "logical order" rule, the Fiscal Tribunal would analyze Article 238(2) only if competence of the Authority is established and Article 238 (1) is not actualized. Article 238(2) is directed toward noncompliance with formalities and may involve an omission of formalities required by law in connection with the resolution itself or an omission of formalities required by law in connection with the proceeding out of which the resolution is issued. By its express terms, Article 238(2) is applicable when:

the law establishes certain specific requirements or formalities which are not followed by the act or proceeding in question; this failure has affected a person’s right of proper defense; and this failure has also affected the scope or meaning {the outcome} of the resolution; alternatively, the administrative act has failed to recite the legal basis on which it was taken and the justifications for taking it.

The first element refers to formal requirements of law which are not observed by, or in connection with, the challenged resolution. "Jurisprudencia" of the Supreme Court holds that the omission or noncompliance with such formalities is sufficient cause for finding the challenged resolution or procedure to be illegal. ¹⁰⁷

In both fiscal and administrative (including antidumping) contexts, an omission or noncompliance with formality may occur in connection with "domiciliary" visits and "verification" visits. The legal guarantees established by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution will apply to each category of visit, however, on an equal basis. The Supreme Court and Fiscal Tribunal "jurisprudencia" make no distinction between the two types of visits, nor do most commentators.

Based on these authorities, an order for a domiciliary or verification visit must be: contained in a written order; be issued by a competent authority; recite the name of the person who will be the subject of the visit and the place to be inspected; recite the purpose of the visit; and satisfy all other requirements of the law. In its Reply Brief, the Investigating Authority takes the position that verification visits in antidumping proceedings are distinct from domiciliary visits of a tax character. Nevertheless, ¹⁰⁸ it does not appear that this position has been accepted by the Supreme Court or by the Fiscal Tribunal in any case; nor does it appear to be consistent with existing Mexican "jurisprudencia" or the requirements of numerous federal laws which establish requirements for verification visits. Even ¹⁰⁹ more importantly, the position appears to be inconsistent with the language of the Constitution itself. The courts have noted that the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Constitution utilizes the plural, not singular ("sujetándose en estos casos a las leyes respectivas y a las formalidades prescritas para los cateos") and thus it appears to comprehend both domiciliary visits and visits for all other purposes. ¹¹⁰

It is appropriate to note, however, that Article 238(2) will not be satisfied merely because there is an omission or noncompliance with a formal requirement of the law. This provision was amended in January, 1986 to require that such omission or noncompliance also "must affect the defense of the person and the scope or meaning (outcome) of the resolution". Article 238(2), therefore, is intended to address more than mere mistakes of formality or otherwise; it is intended to address issues of consequence. What is a matter of consequence will be decided by the Fiscal Trial (or binational panel) on a case-by-case basis.

Article 238(2) also applies in a situation where the agency has failed to cite the legal bases for the resolution or the motivations or justifications for making it. The following "jurisprudencia" of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court notes specifically:¹¹¹

GARANTIA DE FUNDAMENTACION Y MOTIVACION.

GUARANTEE OF FOUNDATION AND BASIS.

Para que la autoridad cumpla la garantía de legalidad, que establece el Artículo 16 de la Constitución Federal, en cuanto a la suficiente fundamentación y motivación de sus determinaciones, en ellas debe citarse el precepto legal que le sirva de apoyo y expresar los razonamientos que la llevaron a la conclusión que las origina, de que el asunto completo de que se trata, encuadra en los presupuestos de la norma que invoca.

In accordance with Article 16 of the Constitution, every act of a government authority must have an adequate and sufficient foundation and basis. With regard to the former, the legal precepts applicable to the case must be expressed with precision and, with regard to the latter, the reasons or causes, as well as any special circumstances that have been taken into account by the agency, must be stated with precision. It is also necessary that there be an adequate relationship between the motivations for the action and the applicable legal norms.

G. Article 238(3)

III. Vicios del procedimiento que afecten las defensas del particular y trasciendan al sentido de la resolución impugnada.

Under Article 238(3), the Fiscal Tribunal will once again not declare the resolution to be a "nullity," requiring the proceeding to be terminated. The court will, instead, simply remand the resolution back to the agency for the correction of errors and the continuation of the proceeding. In contrast to Article 238(2), which involves the omission of formal legal requirements, Article 238(3) is directed toward procedural errors. In particular, the court must find that: There exist some defects in the procedures followed by the agency or official; These defects have affected the scope or meaning {outcome} of the proceeding.¹¹² As is the case with respect to Article 238(2), this provision will not be applicable if the claimant in a trial before the Fiscal Tribunal proves only the procedural defect, without demonstrating how that defect has affected his right of proper defense and how the final resolution of the administrative agency would have differed had the defect not occurred.

H. Articles 238(4)

IV. Si los hechos que la motivaron no se realizaron, fueron distintos o se apreciaron en forma equivocada, o bien se dictó en contravención de las disposiciones aplicadas o dejó de aplicar las debidas.

Article 238(4) of the Mexican standard of review is the first provision to address the merits of the proceeding, since it relates to the legal and factual grounds upon which the agency or official bases its determination. According to Article 239 of the Federal Fiscal Code, if the Fiscal Tribunal finds that the condition set in this Article is being materialized, generally it will declare the mere nullity of the resolution. The basic thrust of Article 238(4) is to determine if the law applied by the agency supports its determination. There are three general forms of defect of which the court will be concerned: (i) the resolution was based on inadequate facts; (ii) the applicable law was violated; or (iii) the applicable law was not applied. Parsing the language of the statute itself, it can be seen that Article 238(4) covers the following situations:

The facts which support the challenged determination do not exist; The facts which are alleged by the agency to support the challenged determination are not the actual facts; The facts cited by the agency in support of the challenged determination were wrongfully considered by the agency; The challenged determination was issued by the agency in violation of the applicable laws and rules; and The agency applied the incorrect laws or rules. The Supreme Court has considered the impact of Article 238(4), requiring that a violation be declared a "nullity," in the following "jurisprudencia":

ORDEN DE AUDITORIA. LA SENTENCIA FISCAL QUE DECLARA SU NULIDAD DEBE SER LISA Y LLANA Y NO PARA EFECTOS.-

AUDIT ORDER. THE TAX JUDGMENTS THAT NULLIFIES THE SAME MUST BE COMPLETE AND NOT ONLY FOR EFFECTS.-

El procedimiento de auditoria encuentra su origen en la orden de visita que tenga por objeto verificar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones fiscales, se inicia con la notificación de dicha orden y culmina con la notification decisión de la auditoría fiscal en la que se determinan las consecuencias legales de los hechos u omisiones que se advirtieron en la auditoría. Por tanto, si la nulidad de la resolución fiscal impugnada se suscitó a consecuencia de que la orden de auditoria que la antecedió contiene vicios, por haberse dictado en contravención de las disposiciones aplicadas o por haberse dejado de aplicar las debidas, tal nulidad debe ser lisa y llana, en términos del artículo 238, fracción IV, del Código Fiscal de la Federación, ya que al ser nula la orden de visita es nulo todo el procedimiento de fiscalización desde su origen y, en estas circunstancias, válidamente puede decirse que la autoridad fiscal no ha iniciado sus facultades de comprobación, pues éstas se inician con el primer acto que se notifique al contribuyente a fin de comprobar si ha cumplido con las disposiciones fiscales, como lo señala el artículo 42 del citado cuerpo legal. Luego, la ilegalidad en la orden de auditoría impide que la nulidad se declare para efectos, como si se tratara de vicios en el procedimiento decision de fiscalización, puesto que tal decisión sólo puede justificarse ante un procedimiento que jurídicamente se inició, pero no respecto de aquel que no llegó a instaurarse por haber estado viciado desde su origen.

An audit proceeding is based on an inspection order that is designed to verify whether or not tax obligations have been fulfilled. The proceeding begins with a of said order and culminates with decision resulting from the tax audit in which the legal consequences of the acts or omissions uncovered in the course of the audit are determined. Consequently, if the nullity of the challenged tax judgment is a consequence of defects in the audit order, in that the audit order was issue in violation of the applicable disposition or for not having applied the applicable disposition, such nullity must be complete within the terms of Article 238, Section IV of the Federal Fiscal Code, since if the audit order is null the entire audit proceeding is null from its origin and in this circumstances, it may be said that the tax authority has not begun to employ its inspection powers, since this begin with a first notice to the tax payer given for the purpose of verifying if he has comply with the tax loss, as is indicated in Article 42 of the Federal Fiscal Code. Therefore, nullity based on an invalid audit order may not be declared solely for its effects, as may occure when dealing with defects in the tax proceeding, since such a (declaring something invalid only for its effects) can only be justified with respect to a proceeding which has legally commenced, but not with respect with a proceeding which has not been inaugurated for having been effective from his origin.

I. Article 238(5)

V. Cuando la resolución administrativa dictada en ejercicio de facultades discrecionales no corresponda a los fines para los cuales la ley confiera dichas facultades.

The discretional powers of an authority in México are understood to be the "power of free appraisal that the law recognizes to the administrative authorities over the content of their acts or actions. This liberty, authorized by law, can be of higger or lower rank and it becomes visible when the authority has a choice between two decisions."¹¹³ There are obviously many circumstances in which the law confers discretionary powers on an administrative agency. The possibility arises, however, that a discretionary determination ¹¹⁴ made by such an agency does not correspond to the purposes for which such discretion was granted. The doctrinal precedent in Mexico for this situation is termed "deviation of power," in other contexts "deviation of procedure." These are said to occur when a discretionary action is carried out by an administrative agency which is at variance with the purposes for which the law granted such discretion. In the following opinion, the Supreme Court stated:¹¹⁵

DESVÍO DE PODER Y OTRAS CAUSAS DE ANULACIÓN DE LOS ACTOS DISCRECIONALES DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN. APLICACIÓN DE LA FRACCIÓN V DEL ARTÍCULO 238 DEL CÓDIGO FISCAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN VIGENTE.

DEVIATION OF POWER AND OTHER CAUSES OF ANNULLMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS. APPLICABILTY OF SECTION V OF ARTICLE 238 OF THE CURRENT FEDERAL FISCAL CODE.

Los actos en cuya formación gocen de discrecionalidad las autoridades administrativas, no escapan del control que ejercen los tribunales del país: éstos, entre ellos el Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación pueden invalidarlos por razones de ilegalidad, por razones de inconstitucionalidad o por una causal de anulación que les es aplicable, específicamente conocida como desvío de poder. Se anulará por razones de ilegalidad, cuando en la emisión del acto no se haya observado el procedimiento previsto en la ley, los supuestos y requisitos establecidos en la misma, o no se cumpla con todos sus efectos de validez, como podría ser la competencia o la forma. Será declarado inconstitucional cuando la autoridad haya violado las garantías consagradas por la Constitución en favor de todos los gobernados, como la fundamentación, la motivación y la audiencia entre otras. Igual sucederá cuando se contravenga alguno de los principios generales del derecho, porque la decisión de la autoridad aparezca ilógica, irracional o arbitraria, o bien que contraríe el principio de igualdad ante la ley. Por último, en esta categoría de actos, opera una causal específica de anulación denominada desvío de poder, regulada concretamente por la fracción V del artículo 238 del Código Fiscal de la Federación , que se produce cuando a pesar de la apariencia de la legalidad del acto se descubre que el agente de la Administración emplea un medio no autorizado por la ley para la consecuencia de un fin ilícito (desvío en el medio), o utiliza el medio establecido por la norma para el logro de un fin distinto perseguido por ella (desvío en el fin), en cuyos casos estará viciado de ilegitimidad del acto.

Actions for which administrative agencies enjoy discretionary authority do not escape judicial review, such as by the Federal Fiscal Tribunal which may invalidate such actions for reasons of illegality, for reasons of unconstitutionality, or for reasons arising out of the principle of deviation of power. Actions may be annulled for reasons of illegality if such actions do not observe the procedures established by law or the requirements of such laws, or they do not comply with the necessary elements of validity such as competence jusrisdiction and form. Actions must be declared unconstitutional when the administrative agency has violated the legal guarantees, established by the constitution, such as a legal basis, purpose, and proper hearing among others. The same will happen when any of the legal general principles is violated, because the authority’s decision appears to be illogical, or unreasonable, arbitrary or in opposition to the principle of equality before the law. Finally, in this category of acts, a specific nullity causal, set out in Article 238 Section 5 of the Federal Fiscal Code, denominated deviation of power operates. It is produced when notwithstanding with the appearence of legallity of the act, it’s discovered that the Administration’s official uses unauthorized means for the fulfilment of a legal purpose (deviation in the means) or uses the established way, set out in the law for the fulfilment of a different puropose than the one pursued by the law. (deviation in the purpose) In said cases the act would be illegal.

Situations covered by Article 238(5) have often arisen in situations where a violation of law occurs but the potential fine is not fixed precisely in amount, permitting the administrative agency to determine the specific amount of the fine. Even though the imposition of a fine is clearly appropriate, Article 238(5) would permit the Fiscal Tribunal to rule that the administrative agency imposed a fine that was excessive in amount. Other examples of situations covered by this provision would be ¹¹⁶ where the administrative agency has imposed dissimilar fines in similar cases, or where it has imposed the same fine against parties who, on the other hand, were wealthy and, on the other hand, were poor. J. Articles 237 and 239 Article 237 of the Federal Fiscal Code requires that decisions and orders of the Fiscal Tribunal be based upon law and examine each and every one of the issues raised by the complainants when there is an omission of the formal legal requirements or infringement of the procedural norms. In doing so, the Fiscal Tribunal is entitled to take well-known facts into account.

The "jurisprudencia" of the Fiscal Tribunal supports the above in that a "principle of congruency" (principio de congruencia) has been adopted by the court, the effect of which is to say that the Fiscal Tribunal will analyze and resolve only the issues raised by the parties, and not issues that have been left unaddressed by the parties. The court is strictly limited to a study and review ¹¹⁷ of the controverted points. According with Sections II and III of the CFF, when the nullity concept related to the omission of formal requirements or violation of the procedure, the Fiscal Tribunal should study and resolve each one of the arguments, still in the case that one of them is well-grounded. The language of Article 237, as practiced by the Fiscal Tribunal, appears quite consistent with the rules otherwise applicable to binational panel review. NAFTA Article 1904 also requires binational panels to base their decisions upon law, the administrative record and Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews ("Panel Rules") limits panel review to the allegations of error of fact or law set out in the complaints and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review. Insofar as reliance upon "well-known facts" is concerned, binational panels also frequently rely extensively on facts which are of public record, such as decisions of courts, prior panels, etc.

For its part, Article 239 allows the Fiscal Tribunal to uphold a challenged determination; declare it a "nullity" for all purposes; or declare it illegal for certain purposes, allowing the determination to be remanded for correction of the errors found. The Fiscal Tribunal will declare a challenged determination a "nullity" for all purposes in the case of Article 238(1), pertaining to incompetence, and in the case of Article 238(4), pertaining to a violation of substantive law. In the case of Article 238(2), (3) and (5), the Fiscal Tribunal will remand the determination to the agency, allowing the errors to be corrected and the proceeding otherwise to continue.

IV. CHALLENGES TO THE FINAL DETERMINATION

The challenges to the Final Determination made by the Complainants are indicated below. ¹¹⁸

Due to the fact that the Majority has concluded that there were jurisdictional errors (errors of competence), which effectively have made the additional errors unnecessary to address, the Majority does not specifically address in this Opinion those errors contained below in headings B-E.

A. Alleged Jurisdictional Errors

Complainants allege that the Final Determination is illegal under Article 16 of the Constitution and should be declared a nullity under Article 238(1) of the Federal Fiscal Code due to the lack of jurisdiction or competence of the agencies and officials of those agencies who participated in the underlying investigation. Complainants specifically allege:

1. The two administrative units which conducted the investigations and carried out various actions, the Dirección General de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (DGPCI) and the Dirección de Cuotas Compensatorias (DCC), did not legally exist from the date of initiation of the investigation on December 24, 1992 until April 1, 1993 when the internal regulations of SECOFI ("SECOFI Internal Regulations") were revised to, among other things, create these units.¹¹⁹

2. The visitation orders ("Visitation Order") of July 13 and 14, 1993 signed ¹²⁰ by Mr. Gustavo Uruchurtu, Director of the Dirección de Procedimientos y Proyectos (DPP), was issued by an official without competent jurisdiction and authority since the administrative unit that he directed was not legally established or empowered by the then applicable SECOFI Internal Regulations or otherwise.

3. The verification visits of July 23-31, 1993 were conducted in part by two officials, Mr. Alberto Lerín Mestas, Director de Investigación de Dumping y Subvenciones and Ms. Erika Guzmán Soulé, Subdirector de Investigación de Dumping y Subvenciones who lacked competent jurisdiction and authority, since these offices or administrative units were not legally established or empowered by the then applicable SECOFI Internal Regulations or otherwise.

4. All SECOFI officials participating in the verification visits of July 23-31, 1993 lacked competent jurisdiction and authority because those officials were designated in orders (i.e., the Visitation Orders) issued by Mr. Gustavo Uruchurtu, Director of the DPP, a subunit of the DGATJ, who lacked competent jurisdiction and authority to appoint individual verifiers.

5. One individual, Mr. Alberto Lerín Mestas, lacked competent jurisdiction and authority to participate in the verification visits made to USX because the Visitation Orders did not authorize him to participate in those visits.

6. Two individuals, Mr. Jorge Santibáñez and Mr. Francisco Velázquez, in their capacity as external consultants, lacked competent authority to participate directly and actively in the verification visits because they were not SECOFI officials.

B. Alleged Technical Errors

Complainants allege that the Final Determination is illegal under Article 16 of the Constitution and should be declared a nullity under Article 238(1) of the Federal Fiscal Code due to certain "technical errors" committed by SECOFI during the investigation. Complainants specifically allege:

1. The failure of the Visitation Orders to specify the place or places in which the verifications were to be conducted, as required by Article 16 of the Constitution.

2. The failure of the Visitation Orders to specify the period of the investigation, as required by Article 16 of the Constitution.

3. SECOFI´s failure to notify the Government of the United States and failure to obtain the authorization of the Government of the United States before conducting the verifications, as required by Article 6.5 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code and Article 21 of the Old Foreign Trade Regulations.

C. Bethlehem´s Alleged Errors Concerning the Dumping Calculation

Complainant alleges that the Final Determination is illegal due to several errors in the way that SECOFI calculated the final dumping margin. Complainant specifically alleges:

1. SECOFI’s incorrect utilization of cost data for which the source is unknown in conducting the sales below cost test, in lieu of other cost data supplied by the Complainant which was received and verified by SECOFI.

2. SECOFI’s commission of numerous ministerial errors in the dumping margin analysis and calculation, including: (i) the use in some instances of incorrect domestic prices [which instances are identified by Complainants according to product codes]; and (ii) the use of reconstructed values in some instances where correct application of SECOFI’s sales-below-cost test would require the use of domestic prices [also identified by product codes].

3. SECOFI’s erroneous calculation of the adjustment for freight on export sales by deducting both the actual freight adjustment reported for each specific sale and an allocated "freight equalization" amount per ton on all sales in calculating the export price.

4. SECOFI’s erroneous calculation of the adjustment for freight on domestic sales by deducting both a product-specific or sale-specific freight adjustment for which the source is unknown and an allocated "freight equalization" amount per ton on all sales in calculating home market price.

5. SECOFI’s method of calculating the profit on domestic sales for use in computing reconstructed value, did not utilize a "reasonable margin of profit" as required by Article 2 (II) (b) of the old Mexican Trade Regulations.

D. Alleged Errors Concerning the Findings of Injury, Threat of Injury, and Causation

Complainants further allege that the Final Determination is illegal due to certain errors in the determinations of injury, threat of injury, and causation. Complainants specifically allege:

1. SECOFI’s failure to disclose the identity of an independent consultant retained by it as well as the contents of the technical report prepared by the consultant violates the transparency requirements set forth in Article 6.7 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code and the due process requirements set forth in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. SECOFI’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent consultant also raises the appearance of a conflict of interest in violation of due process requirements set forth in Article 6.7 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code and Articles 14 and 16 of the Mexican Constitution.

3. With respect to causation, Complainants specifically allege:

a. SECOFI erred in failing to discuss the significant anticompetitive agreements entered into by AHMSA or to demonstrate how AHMSA could be injured, within the meaning of the old Foreign Trade Law, in light of such agreements.

b. SECOFI erred in determining that AHMSA possessed excess production capacity of the subject merchandise was unsupported by positive evidence on the administrative record in violation of the requirements of Article 3.1 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code.

c. SECOFI’s inclusion of data on products which were not subject to the investigation in its analysis of the financial condition of the Mexican industry was unsupported by positive evidence on the administrative record in violation of the requirements of Article 3.1 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code.

d. SECOFI’s methodologies for determining underselling and price suppression and depression were fundamentally defective in that they failed to compare like products.

4. With respect to threat of material injury, Complainants specifically allege:

a. SECOFI erred in failing to disclose the identity of its technical consultant and in failing to make available a public version of the consultant´s technical report.

b. SECOFI erred in failing to address the argument that the anticompetitive agreements entered into by the petitioner removed any possibility of injury to the domestic industry.

c. SECOFI erred in finding that the U.S. producers possessed excess production capacity of the subject merchandise was unsupported by positive evidence on the administrative record in violation of the requirements of Article 3.1 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code.

d. SECOFI erred in determining that the U.S. producers possessed significant inventories of the subject merchandise was unsupported by positive evidence on the administrative record in violation of the requirements of Article 3.1 of the GATT 1979 Antidumping Code.

E. Other Alleged Errors of Fact or Law

Complainants allege that the Final Determination is illegal due to certain other errors of fact or law made by SECOFI in the investigation. Complainants specifically allege:

1. SECOFI’s failure to provide Complainant with access to the complete public record in the underlying investigation violates the transparency and due process requirements set forth in Article 6.7 of the GATT Antidumping Code and Articles 14 and 16 of the Mexican Constitution.

2. SECOFI’s incorrect definition of the scope of the Final Determination (i.e., including products which cannot be produced in Mexico).

3. SECOFI’s findings of injury, threat of injury and dumping were based on an

Continue on to Section V: Competence of the DGPCI and the DCC

¹⁰⁰ Emilio MARGÁIN M., El Recurso Administrativo en Mexico, 2nd Ed., Editorial Porrúa, S.A., 1992 ("MARGÁIN"), at 122-23. (See the case cited in n.94 supra and accompanying text for an illustration of the Fiscal Tribunal examining the relevant internal regulations.)

¹⁰¹ Revisión No. 163982 visible en la Revista del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación de mayo de 1983, p. 821 (involving purported delegation of authority by head of administrative agency, which delegation was not published in the D.O.).

¹⁰² For a general description of these situations, as well as supporting authority. See MARGÁIN, at 121 et seq.

¹⁰³ Amparo Directo 22689, visible en el Informe presentado a la Suprema Corte por su Presidente al terminar el año de 1989, Tercera Parte, Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito, Volumen II, p. 822.

¹⁰⁴ Gaceta S.J.F. No. 77. Pleno, mayo 1994. p.12. See also Sala Superior del TFF en sesión del 11 de mayo de 1990. Firman, el Magistrado Armando Días Olivares, Presidente del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación y la Lic. María Jesús Herrera Martínez, Secretaria General de Acuerdos, que da fe.

¹⁰⁵ This applies to federal officials. In the case of state officials, their authority must be published in the local official journals.

¹⁰⁶ Amparo Directo No. 612/88, visible en el Informe rendido a la Suprema Corte por su Presidente, al terminar el año de 1988, Tercera Parte, Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito, p. 95. (Citado por rgáin M. Op. Cit. p. 129). 107/ Sexta Época, Tercera Parte: Vol. XXXIII, p. 34, A.R. 2125/59 Antonio Garcia Michel. 5 votos Vol. LV, p. 54. A.R. 5752/61 Antonio Pérez Martín. Unanimidad de 40 votos Vol. LV, p. 54. R.F. 47-61 Eulalio Salazar Cruz. Unanimidad de 4 votos Vol. LXXIV, p. 55. R.F. 210/63. Samuel Nieto Enciso. 5 votos Vol. CXXX, p. 80. R.F. 415/61. Hoteles Nacionales, S.A. 5 votos The above "jurisprudencia" relates to former Article 202(b), predecessor to current Article 238(2).

¹⁰⁸ Volume 9, S.P.R. 198, p. 56.

¹⁰⁹ Cf., for example, Art. 16, 63 y 64 de la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo publicada en el D.O. el 4 de agosto de 1994 y que entró en vigor el 1o de junio de 1995; Art. 41 y siguientes de la Ley Federal de Turismo (D.O. 31 XII de 1992 entró en vigor el 31 de Y de 1993) y el Art. 13 fracción V del Reglamento a la Ley Federal de Turismo; Art. 182 y 183 del Reglamento de la Ley de Aguas Nacionales; Art. 85 de la Ley de Comercio Exterior publicada en D.O. el 27 de julio de 1993 y que entró en vigor el 28 de julio de 1993 así como el Art. 146 y 173 del Reglamento de la Ley de Comercio Exterior publicado en el D.O. el 30 de diciembre de 1993 y entró en vigor el 31 de diciembre de 1993; Art. 98 de la Ley Federal de Protección al Consumidor. Art. 71 y 92 de la Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización. (D.O. 1o de julio de 1992 y entró en vigor el 16 de julio de 1992); Art. 126 y 127 del Reglamento de la Ley de Puertos.

¹¹⁰ Séptima Época, Tercera Parte.

Vols. 193-198, R.F. 37/84. Regalos Encanto, S.A. Unanimidad de 4 votos.

Vols. 193-198, R.F. 76/84. Juan Ley Zazueta. Unanimidad de 4 votos.

Vols. 193-198, R.F. 65/83. Leopoldo González Orejas. Unanimidad de 4 votos.

Vols. 193-198, R.F. 29/84. Pedro Espina Cruz. 5 votos.

Vols. 193-198, R.F. 18/84 Jorge Matuk Rady. Unanimidad de 4 votos.

¹¹¹ Informe de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Segunda Parte, 1978, p. 7.

¹¹² See Juicio No. 72286.- Sentencia de 10 de diciembre de 1987, por unanimidad de votos. - Magistrado Instructor Raúl Lerma Jasso.- Secretario: Lic. Alfredo Ortega Mora. ("Conforme al artículo 238, fracción III, del Código Fiscal de la Federación, es insuficiente para declarar la nulidad de una resolución administrativa la existencia de un vicio en el procedimiento del cual haya derivado, cuando tal vicio no afectó las defensas del particular y no trascendió al sentido de la resolución..."). See also Revisión No. 132681.- Resuelta en sesión de 2 de mayo de 1984, por unanimidad de 8 votos.- Magistrado Ponente: Francisco Xavier Cárdenas Durán.- Secretaria: Lic. Rosa Ma. Corripio Moreno. (VIOLACIONES DE PROCEDIMIENTO.- SI NO AFECTAN EL RESULTADO DEL FALLO NO SON RECURRIBLES EN RECURSO DE REVISIÓN).

¹¹³ NAVA NEGRETE, Alfonso. Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano. 1ª edición. México, 1983. Edición Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM. Tomo IV.

¹¹⁴ The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between discretionary powers and regulated or directed powers. See FACULTADES REGLADAS Y FACULTADES DISCRECIONALES. SU DISTINCIÓN. Revisión Nol 363/80. Resuelta en sesión de 20 de mayo de 1982, por mayoría de 6 votos, 1 más con los resolutivos y 1 en contra.

¹¹⁵ Amparo directo 297/86, visible en el Informe presentado a SCJN al terminar el año de 1986, Tercera Parte, Tribunales Colegiados, p. 102 (citado por Margáin M.: Op Cit. p. 151).

¹¹⁶ As an example, it would likely be considered a "deviation of power" if an administrative agency imposed a maximum fine on a Mexican taxpayer who has never before violated the tax laws and did so in this instance only by mistake.

¹¹⁷ Revisión No. 10988 Resuelta en sesión de 12 de junio de 1990.- Mayoría de 7 votos y 1 en contra.- Magistrado Ponente: Gilberto García Camberos.- Secretario: Lic. José Raymundo Rentería Hernández. (SENTENCIAS DICTADAS POR LAS SALAS DE ESTE ÓRGANO COLEGIADO.- DEBEN RESPETAR EL PRINCIPIO DE CONGRUENCIA PROCESAL PREVISTO EN EL ARTÍCULO 237 DEL CÓDIGO FISCAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN). See also José BECERRA BAUTISTA, El Proceso Civil en México, Cuarta edición. Ed. Porrúa México 1974. p. 171.

¹¹⁸ Panelist José Othón Ramírez wants to establish that some of the Complainant’s Briefs were written in poor Spanish.

¹¹⁹ See SECOFI Internal Regulations (Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial), D.O., April 1, 1993, abrogating the SECOFI Internal Regulations published in the D.O. of March 16, 1989. Dr. Alvaro Baillet served as General Director of the DGPCI and Mr. Miguel Angel Velázquez Elizarrarás served as the Director of the DCC.

¹²⁰ Volume 13, C.R. UPCI.211.93.2344. unrepresentative sample of imports of cut-to-length plate originating in the United States.