In summary, Mr. Velázquez and Mr. Saldaña were officials of UPCI , and had been delegated by UPCI the authority to carry out acts challenged by the Complainants.

D. Guidance From Amparo Judgments in Recent Years

In a preceding paragraph the Panel made reference to the amparo decisions of a federal judge that declared the incompetence of two administrative units of SECOFI. This Panel does not consider these decisions as applicable to the present case, since the challenged acts in those cases came from officials within administrative units that lacked legal existence. In the present case, the challenged acts were carried out by a legally established administrative entity (UPCI), which delegated authority, clearly established in two Acuerdos Delegatorios, to two officials working within UPCI. We believe this interpretation is consistent with a principle of interpretation expressly recognized by the Mexican courts, which requires that whenever there are two possible contradictory principles of interpretation, the court shall use the one that results in the least legal uncertainty. If one is to accept that the delegation of powers can only take place between two independent administrative units, ⁹⁴ then one would be forced to accept that the Acuerdos Delegatorios lacked legal rationale, since precisely what they do is to establish delegation of powers on officials within the same administrative unit and thus it could not actually be applied. ⁹⁵

2. LATE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION

At paragraph 6.A.(1) of the Allegations of Errors of Fact or Law presented by the Complainants, ⁹⁶ they state that the Investigating Authority violated Constitutional Articles 14 and 16, ⁹⁷ LCE Article 53 ⁹⁸ and Article 142 of its Regulations, ⁹⁹ and GATT Antidumping Code Article 6.6, ¹⁰⁰ by not notifying the Complainants on time of the decision to initiate the investigation, and by omitting formal requirements that substantively affected their defences.

The Complainants stated, in their Brief, that "the Investigating Authority was obliged to notify them within thirty days following the publication of the Initial Determination." ¹⁰¹

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the Reply to the Investigating Authority’s Brief, and to one of the Petitioners’ Brief (AHMSA), the Complainants stated that they "do not allege the illegal notification of the Initial Determination, and therefore they ask the Panel members to not consider such argument..." ¹⁰²

They then set forth that, "if the notification of the Initial Determination was not changed as illegal, it is because the Complainants considered it legal". ¹⁰³

Finally, they argued that, "It is important for the Complainants to draw to the attention of the Panel members that they never alleged the illegality of the notification of the Initial Determination, therefore, the Panel must not take into account the arguments of AHMSA ¹⁰⁴ in relation to this issue.

The Panel believes that, as was stated by the Investigating Authority, ¹⁰⁵ and by one of the Petitioners (AHMSA), ¹⁰⁶ the Authority published the Initial Determination of the Investigation in the Diario Oficial on October 28, 1993, prior to the notification given to the Complainants, and thus complied with all of the provisions related to procedures regarding notifications in this investigation as required by LCE Articles 52, Paragraphs I ¹⁰⁷ and 53. It also complied with the principles of certainty and legality as set forth in Constitutional Articles 14 and 16, since, as was demonstrated in the administrative record, the Complainants ¹⁰⁸ had the opportunity to file arguments and evidence, in defence of their interests. Accordingly, paragraph II of Article 238 ¹⁰⁹ of the FFC, invoked by the Complainants, was not breached.

If the Complainants considered the notification of the Initial Determination an irregularity, they could have raised this defence within thirty days following the publication of the Initial Determination in the Diario Oficial, as set forth in LCE Article 53. By not doing so, the notifications were presumably agreed to, and therefore, are valid.

Finally, as indicated above, the Complainants considered the Initial Determination to be legal, and thus, contradicted themselves in their original Claim and in their Brief.

Accordingly, the Panel has concluded that the allegation of the Complainants is not legally founded, and that the Investigating Authority complied with the formal requirements set forth by the LCE, by adequately giving notification of the Initial Determination. Therefore, paragraph II of Article 238 of the FFC was not breached.

3. ACCEPTANCE OF THE REQUEST FOR THE INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION BEYOND THE DEADLINE

In the Allegations of Errors of Fact or Law presented by the Complainants in their Claims, ¹¹⁰ they state that the Investigating Authority, by untimely accepting the request of the initiation of the investigation filed by the Petitioners, infringed LCE Article 52, GATT Antidumping Code Article 1 ¹¹¹ and the NAFTA principle of transparency established for any procedure.

The Complainants stated that on August 4, 1993, the Petitioners, through their legal counsel, appeared before the Investigating Authority to request the application of an antidumping duty regime, and of the initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations over the imports of plate originating and coming from, among other countries, Canada.

On October 28, 1993, the decision accepting the request and declaring the initiation of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigation over the imports on plate was published in the Diario Oficial ("Initial Determination").

The Complainants state that by calculating time pursuant to the terms established in the relevant LCE article, the error of the Investigating Authority was clear, because it accepted the Petitioners request when it was out of time. The deadline to issue the Initial Determination was on September 15, 1993, and it was in fact issued on October 28, 1993. Therefore, the Complainants argue that they were left defenseless, because they did not know of the existence or result of the request.

By virtue of the foregoing, the Complainants argue that the Investigating Authority, by admitting beyond the time limit the request for investigation filed by the Petitioners, did not comply with the formal applicable legal requirements, and thus seriously affected the defence of the Complainants, and moreover, breached paragraph II of Article 238 of the FFC.

In the reply to the Investigating Authority’s Brief, ¹¹² and to the Petitioners’ Briefs, ¹¹³ the Complainants reserved their right to verify the facts described in pages 12 and 13 of AHMSA’s Brief, 25 of HYLSA’s Brief, and 91 and 92 of the Investigating Authority’s Brief, upon receipt of access to the confidential information.

Regarding confidential information, the Panel notes that the Investigating Authority granted access to the Complainants to see the confidential information. Legal counsel of the Complainants did not examine the confidential information, as expressly stated during the public hearing ¹¹⁴ and, accordingly, the Complainants lost the opportunity to verify the facts contained in the pages set forth at the above paragraph of the Investigating Authority’s Brief and of the Petitioners’ Briefs. ¹¹⁵

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Panel reviewed in detail the administrative record and accepts what was argued by the Investigating Authority and by the Petitioners; namely, that the Initial Determination was within the time limits. The Complainants made an incorrect interpretation of LCE Article 52 and of GATT Antidumping Code Article 1. Even though the petition was not accepted within the 30 days established in Article 52, the Complainants did not take into consideration paragraph II of Article 52, ¹¹⁶ which states that the Investigating Authority can request the Petitioners to provide additional proof or data, and that this must be provided within a 20 day period, and if the Petitioners provide such information, the Investigating Authority then has another 20 day period to accept the request, and to declare the initiation of the investigation through a decision that must be published in the Diario Oficial.

In fact, the Petitioners, first, filed the petition of the initiation on August 4, 1993. ¹¹⁷ Secondly, the Investigating Authority, by means of the official letters UPCI.93.211.2983 and UPCI.93.211.2984 dated September 13, 1993, ¹¹⁸ required from the Petitioners additional information related to the application of the reconstructed value as a normal value. This requirement was fulfilled within the 30 day period set forth in Article 52 of the Foreign Trade Law. Thirdly, the Petitioners provided the information mentioned on September 27, 1993. ¹¹⁹ Fourthly, the 20 day period to comply with the stated requirements expired on October 12, 1993. Fifthly, the Investigating Authority issued the Initial Determination on October 15, 1993, which was published in the Diario Oficial on October 28, 1993, ¹²⁰ i.e., within the 20 business days stated in LCE Article 52.

Taking into account the foregoing, the time that can elapse between the request for additional information and the publication of the initiation may extend to 70 business days. If the request for the initiation of the investigation was submitted on August 4, 1993 and on October 28, 1993, the Initial Decision was published in the Diario Oficial the time period was 60 days.

The Panel concludes that the allegation raised by the Complainants has no legal foundation and is therefore invalid. The Investigating Authority complied with the formal requirements set forth in LCE Article 52 and GATT Antidumping Code Article 1. Therefore, paragraph II of Article 238 of the FFC relied on by the Complainants was not breached.

4. LATE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DETERMINATIONS

In their Brief, the Complainants state that the Investigating Authority violated Constitutional Articles 14 and 16, LCE Articles 57 and 59 ¹²¹ and Article 142 of its Regulations, and GATT Antidumping Code Article 7.7, ¹²² by serving the notifications of the Preliminary and Final Determination to the Complainants beyond the time deadline, and by omitting the formal requirements that substantively affected their defences.

The Preliminary and Final Determination were published in the Diario Oficial on the following dates:

1. On April 18, 1995, the Preliminary Determination was published and in that, determination the Investigating Authority decided to continue with the investigation, without imposing an antidumping duty related to the imports of the investigated product originating in and coming from, among other countries, Canada.
2. On December 28, 1995, the Final Determination regarding the imports of the investigated product originating in and coming from, among other countries, Canada, was published.

The Investigating Authority notified the Complainants of the Preliminary and Final Determinations on April 20, 1995, and on January 9, 1996, respectively.

The Preliminary and Final Determinations must be published in the Diario Oficial according to Articles 52, 57 and 59 of the LCE. The Claimants state that according to Articles 57 and 59, the Investigating Authority is obliged to give personal Notification of the Preliminary and Final Determination to the Parties before publication in the Diario Oficial.

Nevertheless, in accordance with Articles 57 and 59 of the LCE, this Panel concludes that the publication of the respective Determinations in the Diario Oficial is enough for them to enter into legal force, independent of whether the notification of them (personal notification is not compulsory) is done before of after publication.

It is worth noting that the notifications were done on time and in form to all Parties, and as such the Complainants were never left in a state of legal defenselessness. If the Complainants believed the notification of the Preliminary Determination was an irregularity, this could have been raised within thirty days following the publication of this Determination, as set forth in its paragraph 357. By not doing so, the notifications were presumably consented to and therefore are valid.

Therefore, paragraph II of Article 238 of the FFC was not breached. The Investigating Authority complied with all the formal requirement of the LCE and its Regulations, and the defence of the Complainants was not affected.

5. LATE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DETERMINATIONS

The Complainants stated in their Claims ¹²³ that the Investigating Authority seriously infringed Constitutional Articles 14 and 16, FTL Articles 57 and 59, ¹²⁴ and GATT Antidumping Code Articles 5.5 and 6.7, ¹²⁵ by not issuing the Preliminary and Final Determinations on time. They also argued that the Investigating Authority also infringed paragraph III of Article 215 of the Criminal Code ¹²⁶ because the competent officer of the Investigating Authority abused his authority by not issuing the Preliminary and Final Determinations on time.

The Complainants stated that between the date of the notice of the initiation of the investigation published in the Diario Oficial on October 28, 1993, and the date of issuance and publication of the Preliminary Determination on April 18, 1995, more than 130 days elapsed. They also stated that more than 260 days elapsed between the date of the decision to initiate the investigation and the issuance and publication of the Final Determination on December 28, 1995.

The Investigating Authority in its Brief ¹²⁷ noted that the reason for exceeding the time limits set forth in LCE Articles 57 and 59 was because GATT Antidumping Code Article 5.5 permitted the extension of time limits to issue the Preliminary and Final Determinations in exceptional circumstances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, during the Public Hearing, counsel for the Investigating Authority recognized that such exceptional circumstances were not brought to the Complainants’ attention.

Moreover, the Investigating Authority and the domestic industry stated that the investigation due to unfair legal practices of the investigated product was characterized as a complex process for the following reasons:

1. It was a dumping and countervailing duties investigation.
2. The process was carried out jointly with two other steel investigations (cold rolled steel and hot rolled steel plate).
3. In the three steel investigations, several exporters from nine countries were investigated.
4. There were about twenty importers involved.
5. There was a need to obtain numerous documents of various types of subsidies from the governments of the United States of America, Venezuela and Brazil.
6. The end of the investigation was affected by two more events following the public hearing; an expert proof applied for by the enterprise Hogoverns Groep B.V. and SIDOR; and the submission and analysis of price commitments promoted by the last enterprise.

Under these conditions, the investigation of price discrimination and subsidies could not be subject to the regular time limits of a normal investigation and, given the extraordinary characteristics of the investigation procedures carried out, this procedure was subject to Article 5.5. of the GATT Antidumping Code.

This Panel considers that although the Investigating Authority in its Brief invoked GATT Antidumping Code Article 5.5., such argument is dismissed by this Panel. In the view of the Panel, the Investigating Authority had to base its Final Determination in Article 5.5 and it failed to do so.

The Panel concludes that there was always certainty with respect to the legal situation of the Complainants.

Regarding the Initiation decision, the Complainants were notified of the initiation of the investigating procedure, and they were given the opportunity to appear before the Investigating Authority to support their interests and rights.

In paragraph 112 of the Initiation decision a 30 day period, from the date upon which that decision took effect, was allowed the importers, exporters, foreign juridical persons that had an interest in the result of the investigation to appear before SECOFI to argue their interests and file their questionnaires.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainants ALGOMA, STELCO and DOFASCO did not appear before the Authority, and only TITAN completed the questionnaire requested by SECOFI.

Regarding the Preliminary Determination issued on April 18, 1995, it is also clear the Complainants had legal certainty, as the Investigating Authority decided not to impose provisional countervailing duties, but continued with the administrative investigation. At paragraph 357 of the Preliminary Determination, the Complainants were granted a 30 day period, counted from the publication in the Diario Oficial so that the interested parties could submit additional evidence and arguments. None of the Complainants did this. Thus, it is clear the Complainants were not left defenseless.

This Panel notes that by giving timely notice to the Complainants of the Initiation decision and Preliminary Determination, these firms were able to appear before SECOFI. The legal counsel of record for the Complainants, Mr. Francisco Fuentes Ostos, who, notwithstanding his appearance before SECOFI, considered it unnecessary for his clients to answer the questionnaires directed to ALGOMA, STELCO and DOFASCO. He expressly stated this at the Public Hearing held on July 18, 1997. ¹²⁸

Since, Mr. Francisco Fuentes Ostos appeared at the hearing before SECOFI during the administrative investigation, and as he is and has been the legal representative of all the Complainants throughout, it cannot be said that the Complainants other than TITAN were left in a state of legal defenselessness.

The Investigating Authority timely notified in writing the interested parties of the Initiation, and Preliminary Determination, as appears from the administrative record and gave the opportunity to the parties to file their defences before it. Regarding the Final Determination, although it was not notified within time, the Complainants were not left in a state of legal uncertainty as they possessed sufficient knowledge to elect the review which resulted in this proceeding. In summary, this Panel concludes that the Complainants were not left in a degree of legal uncertainty that would constitute a breach of paragraph III of Article 238 of the FFC. ¹²⁹

Notwithstanding that the Panel considers that, in this particular case, the defences of the Complainants were not affected by the Investigating Authority, this Panel notes that Article 5.5. of GATT Antidumping Code provides that "Investigations shall, except in special circumstances, be concluded within one year after their initiation." In opinion of this Panel, the inclusion of Article 5.5 in the Code was intended to ensure that administrative authorities in member countries did not unduly extend investigations as a means of mitigating potential negative impacts on trade. ¹³⁰

NAFTA Article 1904(2) specifically provides that for the purpose of Panel reviews "the antidumping and countervailing duties statutes of the Parties, as those statutes may be amended from time to time, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement." Further, Article 1904(15), concerning amendments to domestic laws, is particularly important in respect of the requirements to be adopted by each Signatory Party to fulfil their NAFTA commitments. Paragraph (f) of the schedule for Mexico is most significant in this instance since it required Mexico to amend its antidumping/countervailing duties statutes to provide "explicit and adequate timetables for determinations of the competent investigating authority ..." The time frames set out in Articles 52, 53, 57 and 59 of the LCE appear to be consistent with this requirement. It is relevant to note in this connection that the timeframes provided for in the NAFTA essentially mirror comparable provisions found in the laws of both Canada and the United States and would appear to be in keeping with one of the underlying objectives of NAFTA (Article 1902(2) (d) (ii). ¹³¹

The investigation of imports of steel plate from Canada was initiated in the fall of 1993, shortly after the time limits were adopted in the NAFTA (July 27, 1993) and just prior to the coming into force of NAFTA on January 1, 1994. Moreover, the maximum time limit for investigations provided for in the new WTO Agreement appears to be applicable only to investigations initiated after January 1, 1995. As it seems clear that since this investigation was initiated before these new international agreements took effect, their time limits do not apply in this case. The first indication that the Investigating Authority intended to rely on GATT Code Article 5.5 rather than in NAFTA to justify it’s lengthy investigation was only provided in response to the Brief submitted by the Complainants on July 26, 1996.

This Panel believes that in the absence of legislated and mandatory time limits on the investigation process, uncertainty, risk, excessive costs and lost business can result for all parties involved in a case. While the interests of domestic producers in any particular case may be opposed to those of the importers/exporters, all parties seek prompt decisions. The domestic industry, which is allegedly suffering injury from the dumped/subsidized imports, clearly seeks an early decision in order to protect it’s domestic production from future damage. Importers and exporters likewise want an early decision in the investigation so that they can market their goods free of concerns about unexpected import penalties being imposed in order to remove uncertainty and minimize the very heavy costs now associated with bringing and defending antidumping and countervailing duties cases in many countries. Lengthy antidumping investigations often had the effect of a non-tariff barrier due to the uncertainty created for importers and exporters of the products concerned especially since the allegations of dumping and injury, in many instances, were not supported by the facts. On a more general level, lengthy investigations can have a negative effect at the economy of the importing country as a whole by mitigating the competitive advantages associated with freer trade.

In summary, we consider it important to emphasize that in this case the Complainants did not prove they suffered any economic or legal injury because of the late issuance by the Investigating Authority of the Preliminary and Final Determinations. We are aware that such injury may be caused to other Complainants in future administrative investigations if time limits are not met, and this Panel considers that it is the obligation of the Investigating Authority to adhere to the time limits established in the Articles of the LCE mentioned above. In case of special circumstances requiring the extension of time limits, express mention of the reasons should be made known during the investigating procedure.

Regarding the Complainants’ invocation of the negative answer principle in Article 37 of the FFC, ¹³² this Panel considers that such is not well founded. Negativa ficta in Mexican law is considered as a legal fiction in the sense that if the tax authority is silent regarding a formal request from an individual or juridical person for three months, the interested party may treat that silence as the authority’s denial of the request. Thereupon a remedy is available. In this proceeding, the Complainants did not file any request nor were they ever in a position to claim the benefit of negativa ficta. ¹³³ It is evident that Complainants elected to wait until the Investigating Authority had issued its determinations before taking any steps.

Finally, regarding the Complainant’s argument that the Investigating Authority is subject to the application of the provisions of Article 215 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District, ¹³⁴ which establishes the offences against the administration of justice committed by public officers, this Panel considers that it has no jurisdiction to investigate offences committed by public officers, since Article 21 Constitution establishes the Public Prosecutor as the primary authority for the prosecution of such offences. This argument is dismissed as it was not filed before the competent authority.

Continuation: VI. INJURY

⁸⁹ Mr. Velázquez Elizarrás is the one who signs all the Doc.s, with the exception of the notifications of the Final Determination, which is signed by Mr. Juan Saldaña.

⁹⁰ See: Acuerdo que adscribe unidades administrativas y delega facultades en los Subsecretarios, Oficial Mayor, Directores Generales y otros subalternos de la Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, published in the Diario Oficial, on Thursday, September 12, 1985, p. 19.

⁹¹ See: Acuerdo por el que se adscriben orgánicamente las unidades administrativas de la Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, published in the Diario Oficial on Monday April 3, 1989, p. 22.

⁹² See: Diario Oficial, 29 de marzo de 1994, p. 12.

⁹³ And in general, all other powers bestowed in the Chief Officer of UPCI. See: Acuerdo Delegatorio of 1994, article 5, section VIII, subsections a) to r).

⁹⁴ This principle was cleary recognised by the majority of the Binational Panel in case MEX-94-1904-02. For the reasons mentioned above, this Panel respectfully disagrees with this interpretation.

⁹⁵ See: the Ejecutoria: "Seguro Social. Notificaciones en el recurso de inconformidad ante él". Instancia: segunda sala. Fuente: Semanario Judicial de la Federación. Época: 6 A. Vol.n: XIV - página: 74.

⁹⁶ Claims of TITAN, ALGOMA, DOFASCO and STELCO, p.. 3.

⁹⁷ Article 14.- "[...] Nobody may be deprived from life, freedom, properties, possessions or rights, but by means of a suit filed before the established courts, in which the essential formalities of procedure are fulfilled, and according to the laws issued before the fact."

Article 16.- "Nobody may be disturbed in his person, family, domicile, papers or possessions, but by virtue of a written notice given by a competent authority, that grounds and motivates the legal cause of the procedure."

⁹⁸ Article 53. "From the date in which the Initial Determination of the Investigation is published at the Federal Official Gazette, the Ministry must notify interested parties know to it, so that they may appear before it and present their position. To this end, the interested parties shall be granted a thirty day term, counted from the date of publication of the Initial Decision at the Federal Official Gazette, to submit their defence and the Doc.s upon wich they shall rely.

Along with the notice, the authority shall send a copy of the submitted application, and the attachments that do not contain confidential information or, as the case may be, the corresponding Doc.s related to investigations".

⁹⁹ Article 142. "The Ministry must notify on time and in writing to the interested parties the determination regarding the procedures referred herein."

¹⁰⁰ Article 6.6. "When the competent authorities are satisfied that there is sufficient proof to justify the commencement of an antidumping investigation according to Article 5, it shall notify the party or parties whose products will be subject to investigation, the interested exporters, importers that the investigating authority is aware of and the petitioners, and it shall publish the corresponding notice."

¹⁰¹ Complainant´s Brief, p. 24.

¹⁰² Answer to the Investigating Authority’s Brief, p. 20.

¹⁰³ Op. cit., p. 21.

¹⁰⁴ Answer to AHMSA’s Brief, p. 7.

¹⁰⁵ Investigating Authority’s Brief, p.s 72, 73 and 74.

¹⁰⁶ AMHSA’s Brief, p.s 11, 12 and 13.

¹⁰⁷ Article 52. "Within a thirty day term from the filing of the petitions, the Ministry shall:

I. Accept the petition and shall declare the beginning of the investigation through the corresponding decision that shall be published at the Diario Oficial".

¹⁰⁸ See: footnote at the Investigating Authority’s Brief, p. 73.

¹⁰⁹ Article 238. "An administrative decision shall be declared illegal when one of the following causes is demonstrated:

[...] II. Omission of the formal requirements obliged by law that affects the defences of the persons and goes beyond the sense of the disputed decisions including, as the case may be, the absence of foundation and motivation."

¹¹⁰ Claims of TITAN, ALGOMA, DOFASCO and STELCO, p. 5.

¹¹¹ Article 1. "The establishment of an antidumping right is a measure that only has to be adopted in the circumstances set forth in Article VI of the General Agreement by virtue of the beginning of an investigation carried out according to the provisions of this Code. The following provisions shall rule the application of Article VI of the General Agreement provided that they take measures according to the antidumping laws or regulations."

¹¹² Answer to the Investigating Authority’s Brief, p.s 28 and 29.

¹¹³ Answer to HYLSA’s Brief, p. 8 and Answer to AHMSA’s Brief, p. 7.

¹¹⁴ English Version of the Public Hearing, p. 134.

¹¹⁵ With the exceptions expressed by this Panel in the Resolution of the Pending Motion of July 8, 1997. See: supra, Section on Resolution of Pending Motions.

¹¹⁶ Article 52. "Within a thirty day term from the filing of the petitions, the Ministry shall:

I. Accept the petition and shall declare the beginning of the investigation through the corresponding Decision that shall be published at the Federal Official Gazette.

II. Require to the petitioner more evidentiary or data elements, which should be furnished within a term of 20 days counted from the reception of the request. If the request is satisfactorily complied with, in a twenty day term the Ministry shall proceed pursuant to the above mentioned fraction. If the elements are not furnished in abandoned time and manner required, the petition should be considered as abandoned and the petitioner shall be personally notified, or..."

¹¹⁷ See: Administrative Record, CV, Vols. 1-11, Nº 1, Folio 930690.

¹¹⁸ See: Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Nº 6.

¹¹⁹ See: Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 12, Nº 8, Folio 9303 690.

¹²⁰ See: Administrative Record, CV, Vol. 10, Nº 14.

¹²¹ Article 57. - [last paragraph] "The Preliminary Determination must be notified to the interested parties and must be published at the Federal Official Gazette."

Article 59.- [last paragraph] "The Final Determination must be notified to the interested parties and must be published in the Federal Official Gazette."

¹²² Article 7.7. "When according to what it is set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article an antidumping investigation is suspended or concluded or when a commitment expires, this fact shall be officially noticed and shall be published. In the corresponding notices, at least the basic conclusions should be stated and a summary of the reasons that justify such conclusions".

¹²³ Claims of TITAN, ALGOMA, DOFASCO and STELCO, p. 4.

¹²⁴ "Article 57. Within 130 days term, counted from the date following the publication of the initial Decision of the investigation at the Federal Official Gazette, the Ministry shall issue the preliminary Decision, by means of which it may: ..."

"Article 59. Within 260 days term, counted from the date following the publication of the initial Decision of the investigation at the Federal Official Gazette, the Ministry shall issue the final Decision ..."

¹²⁵ "Article 5.5. Except for exceptional circumstances, the investigations must be concluded within a year counted from the date of its initiation."

¹²⁶ "Article 215. Official servants commit the offence of abusing of their authority when they incur in some of the following infractions:

[...] III. When they unduly retard or deny the particulars the protection or the service that they are obliged to grant them or hinders the submittal or the course of a petition;"

¹²⁷ Investigating Authority’s Brief, pp. 74-80.

¹²⁸ English version of the transcript of the Public Hearing, p. 133.

¹²⁹ "Article 238. An administrative Decision shall be declared illegal when one of the following causes is demonstrated:

[...] III. Vices of procedure that affect the defences of the private person and goes further in the sense of the disputed Decision."

¹³⁰ This provision was reinforced in the negotiation of the WTO Uruguay Round that regulates the application of GATT Article VI of 1994. Article 5.10 of this Agreement establishes a term of 18 months during which the antidumping investigations shall be concluded. This Agreement is effective as of January 1, 1995.

¹³¹ NAFTA Article 1902 (2) (d) (ii) states that "the object and the purpose of this Agreement and this Chapter, which is to establish fair and predictable conditions for the progressive liberalisation of trade between the Parties to this Agreement while maintaining effective and fair disciplines on unfair trade practices, such object and purpose to be ascertained from the provisions of this Agreement, its preamble and objectives, and the practices of the Parties."

¹³² "The Petitions made before the Fiscal Authorities must be resolved in a period of three months; after that period, without the Resolution being notified, the interested Party may consider that the Authority resolved against, and thus may interpose any defence at any time after that period, even if the Resolution has not been issued; or she may wait until the Resolution is issued."

¹³³ See: Negativa Ficta y Negativa Expresa. See: Contradicción de tesis 27/90. Suscitada entre el Sexto y Primer Tribunales Colegiados en Materia Administrativa del Primer Circuito y los Tribunales Cuarto y Quinto en Materia Adminstrativa del mismo Circuito. 16 de junio de 1995. Cinco votos. Ponente: Juan Díaz Romero. Secretario: Jacinto Figueroa Salmorán. Tesis de Jurisprudencia 26/95. Aprobada por la Segunda Sala de este alto Tribuanl, en sussión pública de dieciséis de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, por unanimidad de cinco votos de los señores Ministros: Presidente Juan Díaz Romero, Genaro David Góngora Pimentel, Mariano Azuela Güitrón, Guillermo I. Ortiz Mayagoitia y Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano. Segunda Sala, Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Novena Época, 11, julio, 1995, Tesis 2a./J.26/95, página 77.

¹³⁴ Claimant’s Brief, p.s 41 and 42.