REVIEW BEFORE A BINATIONAL PANEL

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND

1. Administrative Investigation Procedure.
   Chronology of the Proceedings.
2. Procedure Before the Panel

1. Chronology of the Proceedings
2. Motions and Orders
3. Resolution of Pending Motions

1. Motion of July 8, 1997
   1. Background
   2. Order

2. Motion of July 18, 1997
1. Background
2. Order

3. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND POWERS OF THE PANEL

1. Legal Nature of the Binational Panel
2. Nature of the Review Process Before the Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación (Federal Fiscal Court) and Before a Binational Panel
3. Standard of Review to be Applied by the Panel
4. The Applicable Legal Framework to be Applied by the Binational Panel

4. JURISDICTION OF THE PANEL
5. ISSUES IN LITIGATION

1. Jurisdiction of the Dirección General Adjunta Técnica Jurídica

1. Jurisdiction of the Administrative Authorities in the Framework of the Mexican Legal System
2. Acts Specifically Challenged by the Companies
3. Legal Existence and Powers of the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales
4. Guidance from Amparo Judgments in Recent Years

2. Late Issuance of the Notification of the Initiation of the Investigation
3. Acceptance of the Request for the Initiation of the Investigation beyond the Deadline
4. Late Issuance of the Notification of the Preliminary and Final Determinations
5. Late Issuance of the Preliminary and Final Determinations

6. INJURY

1. The Request for Remand by the Investigating Authority

7. ORDER OF THE PANEL

1. Regarding TITAN
2. Regarding Canadian exporters other than TITAN
3. Regarding the Complainants

8. CONCURRING OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

According to Article 1904 and Annex 1901(2) of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"), this Binational Panel was established in order to review the Final Determination issued by the Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial (Secretariat of Industrial Trade and Industrial Promotion) ("the Investigating Authority" or "SECOFI"), published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette of the Federation, "Diario Oficial") on December 30, 1995, as a the result of the administrative investigation filed as 33/93 and carried out by the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (International Trade Practices Unit) ("UPCI") of the Secretariat of Trade and Industrial Promotion.

The administrative procedure was to determine the existence of dumping on Rolled Steel Plate imports originating in or imported from Canada, among other countries. The merchandise ("Investigated Product") was covered by custom tariff classifications 7208.12.01 and 7208.22.01 of the Tarifa de la Ley del Impuesto General de Importación (Tariff Schedule Pursuant to the General Import Tax).

II. BACKGROUND

1. Administrative Investigation Procedure. Chronology of the Proceedings

On August 4, 1993, the companies Altos Hornos de México, S.A. de C.V. ("AHMSA") and Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. ("HYLSA") ("the domestic industry") through their counsel of record, appeared before SECOFI to request the application of a compensatory quota regime and the beginning of an antidumping and countervailing duties investigation on Rolled Steel Plate imports originating in or imported from the Federal Republic of Brazil, Canada, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Venezuela. ¹

On September 13, 1993, the Investigating Authority requested the domestic industry (AHMSA and HYLSA) to submit additional information in relation to the application for an investigation. ²

On September 27, 1993, AHMSA and HYLSA, answered the additional information requirement, submitting more evidence, data and arguments in relation to export prices in third countries, information on normal value and justification for the confidentiality of the submitted information.

On October 28, 1993, the Decision accepting the application was published in the Diario Oficial and the antidumping investigation and countervailing duties investigation on Rolled Steel Plate was initiated. The period from January to December of 1992 was chosen as the period of investigation. ³

On November 24, 1993 the companies The Titan Industrial Corporation ("TITAN") of the United States of America, Algoma Steel Inc. ("ALGOMA"), Dofasco Inc. ("DOFASCO") and Stelco Inc. ("STELCO") of Canada ("the Complainants"), were notified of the initiation of the investigation in question, requiring them to submit specific information, as well as to complete the antidumping questionnaire, which TITAN submitted on January 11, 1994. ⁴

On December 8, 1993, the domestic industry submitted to the Investigating Authority "Document of Comments to the Resolution of the Beginning of the Investigation Against Unfair International Trade Practices on Rolled Steel Plate".

On April 18, 1995, the Investigating Authority issued the Preliminary Determination which was published in the Diario Oficial and decided to continue with the administrative investigation without imposing compensatory quotas in relation to Rolled Steel Plate originating in or imported from Canada. ⁵

The Complainants did not submit comments on the Preliminary Determination, within the time granted for this in accordance with Article 53 of the Ley de Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade Law) ("LCE").

On June 7, 8 and 9, 1995, SECOFI carried out the in situ verification of AHMSA.

On June 21, 22 and 23, 1995, SECOFI carried out the in situ verification of HYLSA.

On July 7, 1995, the Public Hearing before SECOFI of the administrative investigation of the investigated product was carried out.

On July 12, 1995, HYLSA submitted further allegations relating to rolled steel plate imports.

On December 28, 1995, the Final Determination, which imposed definitive antidumping duties on Rolled Steel Plate imports originating in or imported from Canada was published in the Diario Oficial, as follows:

2. Procedure Before the Panel

A. Chronology of the Proceedings

On January 29, 1996, DOFASCO, STELCO, ALGOMA and TITAN, through their common counsel of record requested, based on Article 1904 of NAFTA and its Rules of Procedure ("Rules of Procedure"), the review of the Final Determination of the antidumping and countervailing duties investigations on Rolled Steel Plate imports originating in Canada, published in the Diario Oficial on December 28, 1995. ⁷

On February 28, 1996, the Complainants submitted before the Mexican Section of the Secretariat of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("Secretariat") their Complaints by presenting the notification certificate. ⁸

On May 13, 1996, the company Hubbell International Trading Company ("HUBBELL"), submitted its Notification of Appearance, joining in the allegations of fact and law argued by the Complainants. ⁹

The Panel did not consider HUBBELL in the present review, since this company made no further filings or submissions in accordance with Articles 39(1) and 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure. ¹⁰

On March 8, 1996, SECOFI, through the Director General de Asuntos Jurídicos (General Director of Legal Affairs), submitted the Notification of Appearance, opposing each of the arguments stated by DOFASCO, STELCO, ALGOMA and TITAN in their Complaint. ¹¹

On March 8, 1996, through their counsel of record, HYLSA submitted its Notification of Appearance, opposing each of the arguments stated by DOFASCO, STELCO, ALGOMA and TITAN in their Complaint. ¹²

On March 12, 1996, through their counsel of record, AHMSA submitted its Notification of Appearance, opposing each of the arguments made by DOFASCO, STELCO, ALGOMA and TITAN in their Complaint. ¹³

The Complainants through their counsel of record, joined their Complaints pursuant to Rule 57 (5) of Rules of Procedure, and filed their Brief on May 28, 1996. ¹⁴

On July 26, 1996, SECOFI, through the Director General de Asuntos Jurídicos, filed its Brief. ¹⁵

On July 26, 1996, HYLSA submitted its Brief and on August 19, 1996, filed the Annexes to it. ¹⁶

On July 29, 1996, AHMSA submitted its Brief and on August 19, 1996, filed the Annexes to it. ¹⁷

On August 13, 1996, the Complainants submitted the Reply to HYLSA’s Brief, the Reply to the Investigating Authority’s Brief and the Reply to AHMSA’s Brief, and on August 23, 1996, they filed the Annexes to their Brief.

On September 10, 1996, according to Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, the Binational Panel of the case in question was established with Gustavo Vega Cánovas as Chair, ¹⁸ Martin H. Freedman, ¹⁹ Lucía Reina Antuña, ²⁰ Gilbert R. Winham ²¹ and Rodolfo Terrazas Salgado ²² as Members.

On September 24, 1996, Panelist Martin H. Freedman resigned due to lack of time in his agenda to perform the duties of a Panelist. ²³

On September 25, 1996, a Notification of Suspension of the Panel was published, due to problems that emerged with the appointment of some Panelists. ²⁴

On October 11, 1996, the Notification of Suspension of the Panel was sent to the American and Canadian Secretaries, and was published in the Diario Oficial. ²⁵

On November 8, 1996, Panelist Gilbert R. Winham withdrew due to conflicting duties with the government of his country. ²⁶

According to paragraph 9 of Annex 1901(2) of NAFTA, the governments of Canada and Mexico advised on January 13, 1997, that D.M.M. Goldie and W. Roy Hines were designated as substitute Panelists of the Panel. ²⁷

The case in question was reactivated when the Panel was definitively established with Gustavo Vega Cánovas as Chair, D.M.M. Goldie, Lucía Reina Antuña, W. Roy Hines and Rodolfo Terrazas Salgado as members. Peter N. Mantas, ²⁸ Hernán García Corral, ²⁹ Rocío E. Álvarez ³⁰ y Eduarda María Días Oliveira Matos, ³¹ Arturo Reina Celaya, ³² Rafael Dueñas Hernández, ³³ Gabriela Rodríguez Huerta ³⁴ and Francisco J.J. Castro y Ortíz ³⁵ were named as assistants with access to confidential information.

After some delays, the Public Hearing took place on July 18, 1997, in which the Complainants, SECOFI and the domestic industry presented their case. ³⁶

B. Motions and Orders

During the review procedure the Panel issued various orders, most of them in response to motions made by the Parties. However, others were issued by the Panel sua sponte in exercise of its powers. The foundation and motivation for each motion is set out below. The Panel decided that, in addition to the specific foundation of each order, all the orders that were issued in response to the motions were founded on Rule 63 of the Rules of Procedure.

On March 14, 1997, the Panel issued an order in which the dates of the Public Hearing and of the Final Decision of the Panel were extended, based on Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure, due to the delay in establishing the new Panel. The date for the Public Hearing was set for June 15, 1997, and the date for issuance of the Final Decision of the Panel was to be October 14, 1997. ³⁷

The Panel ordered on April 1, 1997, that SECOFI grant within a period not greater than 10 days after the date of the Order, access authorization to Confidential Information, without requiring the granting of any other guarantee or additional requirement envisaged in the Ley de Comercio Exterior or in the Rules of Procedure, to Francisco Fuentes Ostos as counsel of record of the Complainants, in response to the Motion concerning confidential information access put forward by them on May 28, 1996. ³⁸ In the same Order, the Panel authorized the Complainants to submit documents and additional allegations, if these resulted from the review of the confidential information. ³⁹

On April 7, 1997, the Panel issued an Order ⁴⁰ rejecting the Motion submitted by the Complainants on November 7, 1996, requesting that the allegations and documents the Investigating Authority had submitted to the Panel on October 24, 1996, be rejected. ⁴¹ The Panel decided that the Investigating Authority did not violate the Rules of Procedure 52 (2), 59 and 61 by submitting to it the Decisions of the Panel MEX-94-1904-01 and MEX-94-1904-03, since these are not precedents according to Article 1904 (9) of NAFTA.

That same day, the Panel issued a Order ⁴² accepting the Motion submitted by the Investigating Authority of July 12, 1996 rejecting the arguments of the Complainants in relation to expert opinions attempting to verify that the products exported by one of the Complainants came under the category of identical or similar merchandise classification, since these arguments did not comply with Rules 39 and 40. Further, the Panel empowered the Complainants to submit new arguments that emerged after the review of the confidential information within thirty days after the issuance of the Order in question. ⁴³

On April 18, 1997, according to Rules 2, 49 (2) and 63 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Panel rejected the Motion submitted by the Investigating Authority on April 10, 1997 in which it sought to preclude the Complainants’ rights of access to confidential information or to submit new arguments. ⁴⁴

On April 21, 1997, the Panel issued an Order ⁴⁵ to correct the name of AHMSA in a previous Order and to reject the Motion of the Investigating Authority requesting the Panel to reconsider its Order of April 1, 1997, in which SECOFI was ordered to grant access to confidential information to Francisco Fuentes Ostos as counsel of record of the Complainants.

On May 12, 1997, the Panel issued an Order by which it accepted the Complainants’ Motion of April 2 requesting the Investigating Authority to authorize access to confidential information, and allowing the Investigating Authority until May 15, 1997, to issue this authorization. ⁴⁶ The Panel also extended the date of the Public Hearing until July 18, 1997.

On May 21, 1997, the Panel issued an Order rejecting the Motion of the Investigating Authority of May 13, 1997, requesting the rescission of the Panel’s Order of May 12, 1997. ⁴⁷

On July 10, 1997, the Panel issued an Order determining the agenda of the Public Hearing to be held on July 18 at El Colegio de México, A.C. ⁴⁸

On September 17, 1997, the Panel issued an Order requiring the Investigating Authority to file with the Secretariat certain information classified as "privileged" on or before September 24, 1997, and stating that such information was for the exclusive use of the Panelists and their assistants. It also chose November 17, 1997 as the new date to issue its Final Decision. ⁴⁹

On October 17, 1997 the Panel issued an Order ⁵⁰ rejecting the Motion of the Investigating Authority of September 23, 1997, which requested the Panel to rescind its requirement of September 17, 1997 that access to the privileged information be provided to the Panel members and its assistants, within 24 hours. The Panel warned the Investigating Authority that, in case it did not fulfil this requirement, it would issue its Final Decision taking into account the "best available information".

On October 29, 1997, the Panel issued an Order by which it deferred the date of issuance of its Final Decision to December 17, 1997. ⁵¹

C. Resolution of Pending Motions

a. Motion of July 8, 1997

i. Background

On July 8, 1997 the Investigating Authority, in accordance with Rule 61 (1) of the Rules of Procedure submitted a motion to the Panel requesting it to preclude the Complainants’ rights to present additional arguments in the present review.

The Investigating Authority argued that the Complainants’ right to present a new brief related to the confidential information, to which they had access since May 22 1997, which expired because the Complainants did not exercise the right that was given to them by the Panel on May 21 1997.

The motion of the Investigating Authority is valid since it is based on Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure. This Panel, after referring to rules 2 and 63 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, and after having analyzed the rights and the arguments of the Parties, orders as follows:

ii. Order

The motion of the Investigating Authority presented on July 8 1997 is denied based on the following considerations:

First. - The Panel considers that the facts upon which the Order of May 21 1997 was based have been overtaken by events.

Second. - This Panel considers that given the facts set out in the injury section ⁵² of this Decision, the need to modify the order of May 21 1997 is evident in order to allow the Complainants access to the administrative file on which the Investigating Authority will issue a determination responding to the Panel’s remand. Accordingly, the rights of the Complainants will be preserved in the event that in its response to the remand Order, the Investigating Authority decides to supplement the administrative file. ⁵³

b. Motion of July 18, 1997

i. Background

On July 18, 1997, during the Public Hearing, the Investigating Authority, in accordance with Rule 61 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, filed a Motion to have the issue of accumulation, which was brought forward during the hearing, dismissed as a part of the review.

The Investigating Authority alleged that this Panel must dismiss the accumulation issue because it lacked a foundation in the Rules and in NAFTA. According to the Investigating Authority, this issue was raised by Panelist W. Roy Hines through his questions and enlarged upon by counsel for the Complainants in their reply to that motion. The ground to dismiss was that the accumulation issue was not alleged by the Complainants in their Complaint or Brief and, by virtue of Rule 7(a) of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure, could not be reviewed by this Panel.

In their reply to the Motion of the Investigating Authority, the Complainants requested the Panel to dismiss the Motion of the Investigating Authority since they argued that each had put forward in its Complaint or in their joint Brief the issue of accumulation. The Complainants affirmed they had established that the issues in litigation put forward by them in relation to TITAN-DOFASCO encompassed the calculation of injury in the Final Determination. According to the Complainants, if the Investigating Authority had taken into account TITAN’s information, it would have had to conclude the imports from Canada should not have been accumulated for injury determination since they were insignificant. In conclusion, the Complainants requested this Panel to include the effect of the issue of accumulation of import volumes of rolled steel plate to Mexico from Canada in the Final Decision.

In its rejoinder, or reply to the reply of the Complainants, the Investigating Authority maintained that the arguments put forward by Panelist W. Roy Hines and the Complainants regarding the accumulation of imports from Canada should be dismissed because they did not constitute part of the litis, and because in its opinion, including these issues would leave the Investigating Authority in a state of defenselessness and the principle of fairness would be breached.

On August 13, the Complainants filed a reply to the rejoinder of the Investigating Authority in which they requested its dismissal because they considered it to be a breach of Rule 62 of the Rules of Procedure, which, according to them, does not provide any right to rejoin or reply to the replies of a motion.

On August 20, the Investigating Authority requested the dismissal of the Complainants reply as it considered the Complainants request unlawful since they expressly agreed that the Panel should allow the Authority to file the reply to the rejoinder.

The Motion of the Investigating Authority is lawful as it is provided for in Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure. This Panel has jurisdiction to rule upon it pursuant to Rule 2, 63 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, and after analyzing the facts and arguments of the Parties, orders as follows:

ii. Order

The Motion filed by the Investigating Authority on July 18 is dismissed based on the following considerations:

First. - The Panel considers the arguments of the Complainants to be well founded in the sense that SECOFI’s error regarding TITAN resulted in the Investigating Authority reaching erroneous conclusions regarding the injury that imports from Canada caused to the domestic industry. ⁵⁴ This error and the imports allegedly credited to Complainants other than TITAN have resulted in the establishment of a price discrimination margin for all of Canada. This directly affects the Complainants as well as any other potential Canadian exporters. SECOFI, when recognizing its error, has introduced in the litis all aspects of the injury determination, including accumulation, which must be made by the Investigating Authority in its determination on remand. From this perspective, this Panel considers that it is subsection (b) and not subsection (a) of Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure that is applicable in the present case, since the issue of accumulation has become a possible substantive defense during the Panel review.

Second. - This Panel considers that the arguments of the Investigating Authority are unfounded when claiming that the issue of accumulation was improperly mentioned by Panelist W. Roy Hines during the public hearing in violation of Rule 7 (a) of the Rules of Procedure. Panelist Hines neither argued in favour or against the issue of accumulation during the Public Hearing. What he did was to formulate questions on the Panel’s behalf in respect of the apparent contradictions in the Final Determination regarding the evaluation of the data used by SECOFI. These questions were set forth in direct relation to the Final Determination, where numerous references to accumulation can be found.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND POWERS OF THE PANEL

A NAFTA Chapter XIX binational panel, like any other arbitral or jurisdictional body, is governed by a legal framework which endows it with specific powers, limits its functions, standardizes the proceeding upon which it must decide, and provides the standard of review which the Panel must follow in issuing its final decision.

The standard of review this Panel must apply, and the scope of its powers are important for the present review, and this Panel considers that an adequate treatment of these topics requires a careful analysis of the following issues:

1. Legal Nature of the Binational Panel

The Complainants argued that the legal nature of the binational panel was irrelevant and what was important was that this Panel stood in place of the court of the importing party, thus having to apply the legislation in the way a Court does. The Complainants even say the Panel possesses powers to declare the absolute nullity of a challenged Final Determination. The Investigating Authority, instead, asserted that the binational panel is an arbitration body with limited powers that in no way can be compared to a court of the importing party with powers to nullify the determination of the Investigating Authority.

This panel agrees with the Investigating Authority in the sense that a binational panel has features that characterize it as an arbitration body. However, it is important to recognize that its nature as an arbitration body is sui generis, for the following reasons:

a. Without doubt, the arbitral character of a binational panel is indisputable, since the NAFTA contracting States obliged themselves to have their respective investigating authorities abide the jurisdiction of a Panel, in the event the alternative dispute settlement mechanism, contained in chapter XIX of the NAFTA Agreement, was chosen by a party with a right for them to prefer this proceeding to even the one normally followed before jurisdictional tribunals of the importing Party.

b. There is a substantial difference in the procedure followed by a binational panel, compared to ordinary arbitration. In the latter, parties participate in the selection or elaboration of the procedural rules that must be applied, which in the former, such rules are established in advance by the NAFTA contracting parties. These rules reflect at least two different regulatory schemes: the international one, which is composed of the provisions contained in the Agreement, and are related to multilateral rules such as those set out in GATT and its Codes of Conduct; and the domestic one, which reflects the legal provisions dealing with unfair trade practices, which must be followed by binational panels.

c. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the particular characteristics of binational panels make them seem more like jurisdictional tribunals than arbitral tribunals. In fact, given their review powers regarding the proceedings concluded by an investigating authority, they are much more like the relationship between a court of appeal with respect to a first instance court. This follows from the fact that a final decision of the Panel is provided for in paragraph 11 of NAFTA Article 1904, and a challenge may only proceed in an extraordinary manner before a special Committee established according to the Rules of Procedure of the NAFTA Agreement, standing out as a special characteristic is the fact that, according to paragraph 14 of Article 1904, provided that the NAFTA Rules, where appropriate, will be based on judicial rules of appellate procedure. This confirms the conclusion that we are in the presence of an arbitral body whose functions are closer to those of a jurisdictional court of appeal.

2. Nature of the Review Process Before the Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación (Federal Fiscal Court) and Before a Binational Panel

From the foregoing this Panel concludes that it is neither similar to the Federal Fiscal Court nor does it have the same characteristics, attributes and jurisdiction of that court. ⁵⁵ While the jurisdiction and attributes of the Federal Fiscal Court are governed by Mexican law, particularly by many legal provisions of the Federal Fiscal Code, the jurisdiction and attributes of this Panel are ruled by NAFTA in the first place, and secondly by Mexican law but only in the way NAFTA establishes. Therefore, as a consequence a binational panel review differs from that carried out by the Federal Fiscal Court.

Thus in order to define the characteristics of the proceedings before this Panel, which distinguishes it from one before the Federal Fiscal Court, it is important to bear in mind the legal provisions established in paragraph 1 of Article 1904 of NAFTA, which states:

"As provided in this Article, each party shall replace judicial review of final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with binational panel review."

From this paragraph it is important to point out that each one of the parties must replace the internal judicial review of a Final Determination regarding antidumping and countervailing duties with the review made by a binational panel. It follows that, once the alternative dispute settlement mechanism referred to in Article 97 of the LCE is chosen, it is evident that the proceedings and courts of the importing Party are excluded.

In other words, more than a replacement or substitution (which grammatically means the same thing), strictly this is about what jurisprudence refers to as exclusion of the domestic forum. This alternative mechanism constitutes a proceeding that eliminates the jurisdiction of the domestic courts, because the signatory Parties as public law entities, cannot be subject to any domestic jurisdiction, in order to safeguard their sovereignty. In the same way, paragraph 11 of Article 1904, expressly prohibits the importing party from commencing a judicial review of a Final Determination which is subject to a proceeding before a Panel, or to establish in its internal legislation the possibility of challenging before its tribunals a determination issued by a binational panel.

In conclusion, according to NAFTA Chapter XIX, the alternative mechanism is a legal way to settle an international dispute originating when a review of a Final Determination before a binational panel is requested. This Panel acts as an impartial third party applying the standards established in Article 1904 and its Rules, and excluding the jurisdictional proceeding and the national courts of the importing party, in order to issue a just, inexpensive and speedy decision which is in accord with the objectives of NAFTA.

Continuation: 3. Standard of Review to be Applied by the Panel

¹ Administrative Record, Confidential Version ("CV"), Vol.s 1-11, Nº 1, File 9303690.

² Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Nº 8, Folio 9304369.

³ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 10, Nº 14, Folio 35-93/RIP.

⁴ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 14, Nº 158, Folio 9400178.

⁵ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 18, Nº 470, File RESP.PRELI.PR.

⁶ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 25, Nº 751, File 35-93/RFP.

⁷ Application of a Review Before a Panel, Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 1.

⁸ Complaints, Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 1, Doc. Nº 14.

⁹ Brief of the Investigating Authority, July 26, 1996, p. xxii.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 1, Doc. Nº 16.

¹² Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 1, Doc. Nº 15.

¹³ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 1, Doc. Nº 18.

¹⁴ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 4, Doc. Nº 31.

¹⁵ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 4, Doc. Nº 42.

¹⁶ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 4, Doc. Nº 43.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 4, Doc. Nº 70.

¹⁹ Administrative Record, CV, File Nº SMSTLC-1996-J-520.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

²³ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 58.

²⁴ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 61.

²⁵ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 62.

²⁶ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6 Doc. Nº 65.

²⁷ SECOFI, Subsecretaría de Negociaciones Comeciales Internacionales (Sub-secretary of International Commercial Negotiations), File Nº 511.04.01.97.

²⁸ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 71.

²⁹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 9, Doc. Nº 113.

³⁰ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 72.

³¹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 9, Doc. Nº 119.

³² Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 71.

³³ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Doc. Nº 155.

³⁴ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 71.

³⁵ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 71.

³⁶ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 71.

³⁷ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 73.

³⁸ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 3, Doc. Nº 30.

³⁹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 75.

⁴⁰ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 7, Doc. Nº 77.

⁴¹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 6, Doc. Nº 64.

⁴² Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 7, Doc. Nº 79.

⁴³ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 7, Doc. Nº 79.

⁴⁴ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 7, Doc. Nº 87.

⁴⁵ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 8, Doc. Nº 89.

⁴⁶ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 8, Doc. Nº 97.

⁴⁷ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 9, Doc. Nº 105.

⁴⁸ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 10, Doc. Nº 125.

⁴⁹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Doc. Nº 151.

⁵⁰ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Doc. Nº 154.

⁵¹ Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Doc. Nº 164.

⁵² See: the implications of the request for remand of the Investigating Authority developed in the injury section of this Decision.

⁵³ See: Section VII of this Final Decision, regarding the Panel’s Order related to the Complainants, infra.

⁵⁴ See: the implications of the Investigating Authority’s error, which this Panel addresses in the injury section of this Decision.

⁵⁵ According to paragraph XI of article 11 of the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on December 15, 1995, the internal judicial review of the final determination on compensatory quotas corresponds to this tribunal.