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

IN THE MATTER OF:

Antidumping Investigation of Mexico into Imports of Flat Coated Steel Products from the United States of America
(Continued)

III. COMPETENCE OF OFFICIALS BEFORE APRIL 1, 1993

50. In their Complaints, Bethlehem, Inland, LTV and USX each claimed that the officials who carried out the anti-dumping proceeding between December 24, 1992 and April 1, 1993 lacked competence. During the Panel review (but not in its Complaint), New Process also raised this issue. However, since New Process did not raise the claim of lack of competence in its Complaint, this Panel lacks jurisdiction under Rule 7 of the NAFTA Panel Rules to consider this claim by New Process. As discussed above, under Rule 7 of the NAFTA Panel Rules, our jurisdiction is to look individually at each Complaint, and individually at each issue in each Complaint.

51. USX, Bethlehem, Inland and LTV raised issues of competence individually through their Complaints in this Binational Panel proceeding. These U.S. exporters say that officials who carried out the anti-dumping proceeding between December 24, 1992 and April 1, 1993 performed certain administrative acts in the conduct of the proceeding at a time when they lacked competence to carry out those acts. They claim that under Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution the official carrying out those actions must have competence to do so. Under Article 16, that competence requires that the acting authority be legally created by law or regulation and that the entity must only act in accordance with the express authority granted by Mexican law. They argue that since these requirements were not fulfilled in this situation, the Final Determination should be declared illegal under Article 238/I of the Federal Fiscal Code.

52. The challenge to the jurisdiction (competence) of the investigating authority raised by the U.S. respondents has a dual dimension: a constitutional dimension and a legal dimension. Mexican courts have drawn this distinction. The "constitutional competence" is derived from the provisions of the Constitution and is protected by the amparo trial implementing the constitutional guaranty established by Article 16. ¹⁹ "Legal competence" relates to ordinary legal provisions or decrees issued by the Legislative Power ("Ley Reglamentaria"). Since the Panel sits in place of the Federal Fiscal Tribunal (not an amparo court), it considers violations of legal competence arising under Article 238(1) of the Federal Fiscal Code and any laws or regulations relevant to SECOFI that establish the competence of SECOFI officials, but only "indirectly" violations of the individual guarantees recognized in Article 16(1) of the Constitution.²⁰

53. In view of this dual dimension of competence, one question is whether this Panel is empowered to decide constitutional issues raised by the parties.²¹ Neither NAFTA, Chapter 19 nor the NAFTA Panel Rules provide a clear answer to this question. Nevertheless, as the Panel may apply Mexican law "to the extent that a court of the importing party would rely on such materials", the Panel may reasonably look for guidance to the regulations, administrative practice and judicial precedents in which a party has raised constitutional arguments before the Federal Fiscal Tribunal.

54. The Federal Fiscal Tribunal is not authorized by the Constitution or the Organic Law of the Federal Fiscal Tribunal or the Federal Fiscal Code, to directly decide on the constitutionality of an act, because the Federal Fiscal Tribunal is a tribunal of an administrative character.²² On the other hand, two theses issued by the Federal Fiscal Tribunal that have been provided to this Panel, establish that in order to determine the nullity of action of an administrative entity, the Federal Fiscal Tribunal should support its decision by reference to the Constitution.²³ However, this Panel need not decide whether it has the authority to review constitutional issues under Mexican law, because the standard of review set out in Article 238 limits the review to issues of legality.

55. As we attempt to apply Article 238, we note that the issues of competence presented to this Panel raise new and complex questions involving anti-dumping proceedings under Mexican law. Most of the precedents in fiscal and administrative matters involve proceedings against a single person or company. There are some precedents involving recent amparo proceedings. These decisions, however, have not addressed all of the legal considerations that this Panel believes are relevant to the analysis. Similarly, the decisions of the Binational Panels in Cases Nos. MEX-94-1904-02 and MEX-94-1904-03, do not fully address these considerations.

56. The Panel believes that the issues of competence presented to us require an analysis of (A) the specific administrative acts that occurred before April 1, 1993, (B) the competence of the officials who performed these administrative acts, © the legal duties and interests of exporters in an antidumping proceeding that exist independently of any incompetent acts, including the right of exporters to present evidence and to have the evidence considered by the Investigating Authority, (D) the guidance from past amparo and Panel decisions, and (E) whether any "administrative determinations" within the Final Determination were derived from or based on proceedings carried out by incompetent officials. As discussed below, this analysis requires that the claim of competence presented by Inland be decided differently from the claims of competence presented by the other U.S. exporters.

A. THE SPECIFIC ACTS AT ISSUE

57. The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated by the provisional resolution published in the Diario Oficial on December ²⁴, 1992. Before December 24, 1992, there were no "proceedings" within the meaning of Article 238, Section I, of the Federal Fiscal Code. Therefore, the Panel did not consider any of the acts that occurred before December 24, 1992. Also, the U.S. exporters agree that the act initiating the proceeding on December 24, 1992 was performed by an official of SECOFI who was competent. Therefore, the act of initiating the proceeding also is not challenged.

58. On April 1, 1993 SECOFI published in the Diario Oficial an Internal Regulation establishing the competence of new units within SECOFI. We review here those official acts that occurred between December 24, 1992 and April 1, 1993. The specific acts as shown in the administrative record are of the following types:

1. There are several resolutions acknowledging the receipt of various pleadings and submissions from U.S. exporters, IMSA and other interested persons.²⁴

2. There was a series of notifications sent to 26 U.S. Exporters on February 8, 1993. ²⁵ These notifications informed U.S. exporters of the initiation of the anti-dumping proceeding and enclosed an anti-dumping questionnaire. In addition, these notifications purported to state a deadline by which responses to the questionnaire must be submitted and warned of certain consequences if responses were not submitted.

3. The last type of official act during this period were documents denying a procedural request from a particular party. Generally, these were denials of requests for an extension of time in which to submit responses to the questionnaires.²⁶

59. The U.S. exporters have focused on the second and third categories. All of the above documents in these categories begin by identifying the following General Directorate and Area Directorate of SECOFI:

DIRECCION GENERAL DE PRACTICAS COMERCIALES INTERNACIONALES. DIRECCION DE CUOTAS COMPENSATORIAS.

60. Almost all of these documents were signed by Miguel Angel Velázquez Elizarrarás as "the Director," and on behalf of either the Dirección General de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales ("DGPCI") or the Dirección de Cuotas Compensatorias ("DCC").

B. COMPETENCE OF THE OFFICIAL ACTING FOR DGPCI AND DCC

61. The U.S. exporters claim that neither DGPCI or DCC existed before April 1, 1993, and that, therefore, Mr. Velázquez (who claimed to be acting on behalf of DGPCI or DCC) was incompetent. In its brief, SECOFI does not deny that DGPCI did not lawfully exist. Instead, SECOFI argues that the existence of DGPCI is irrelevant, because DCC was lawfully created and because the director of DCC was the person who processed the investigation administratively.²⁷

62. The parties differ about the legal status of DCC. The U.S. exporters claim that DCC, like DGCPI, was never legally established. SECOFI claims that DCC was properly established as an Area Directorate under a General Directorate different than DGPCI, through a 1988 General Manual of Organization published in the Diario Oficial. 63. 1. It is important to understand the legal context of this issue of competence. The Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal ("LOAPF"), which establishes the different departments and ministries, including SECOFI, specifies the jurisdiction and powers of subordinate entities within each ministry and secretariat. Articles 14, 16 and 18 of this Law stated, at the relevant time:

Artículo 14. Al frente de cada Secretaría habrá un Secretario de Estado, quien para el despacho de los asuntos de su competencia se auxiliará por los subsecretarios, oficial mayor, directores, subdirectores, jefes y subjefes de departamento, oficina, sección, mesa, y por los demás funcionarios que establezca el reglamento interior respectivo y otras disposiciones legales. Artículo 16. Corresponde originalmente a los titulares de las Secretarias de Estado y Departamentos Administrativos el trámite, y resolución de los asuntos de su competencia, pero para la mejor organización del trabajo podrán delegar en los funcionarios a que se refieren los artículos 14 y 15, cualesquiera de sus facultades, excepto aquellas que por disposición de la ley o del reglamento interior respectivo, deban ser ejercidas precisamente por dichos titulares... Los propios titulares de las Secretarías de Estado y Departamentos también podrán adscribir orgánicamente las unidades administrativas establecidas en el reglamento interior repectivo, a las subsecretarías, oficialía mayor, y a las otras unidades de nivel administrativo equivalente que se precisen en el mismo reglamento interior. Los acuerdos por los cuales se deleguen facultades o se adscriban unidades administrativas se publicarán en al Diario Oficial de la Federación. Artículo 18. En el reglamento interior de cada una de las Secretarías de Estado y Departamentos Administrativos, que será expedido por el Presidente de la República, se determinarán las atribuciones de sus unidades administrativas, así como la forma en que los titulares podrán ser suplidos en sus ausencias.

Article 14. At the head of each Ministry, there shall be a Minister of state who will be assisted in matters under his jurisdiction by undersecretaries, a chief of staff, directors, deputy directors, and by directors and subdirectors of areas, offices, sections and subsections, and all other authorized persons mentioned in the appropriate internal regulation and in other legal provisions. Article 16. The Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments are responsible for the processing and resolution of matters within the jurisdiction of their respective ministries and agencies. However, in order to better organize their work, they may delegate any of their powers to the officials referred to in Articles 14 and 15, except for those powers that by law or in accordance with the respective internal regulation must be exercised personally by the Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments. . . The Secretaries of State and the heads of the Administrative Departments may allocate organically the administrative units established in their respective internal regulations to the Undersecretaries, Chief of Staff, and other administrative units at an administrative level equivalent to those set out in such internal regulations. The agreements through which the powers are either delegated or granted to administrative units shall be published in the "Diario Oficial de la Federación." Article 18. The functions of the administrative units of the Ministries and administrative departments, together with the manner in which they can be substituted during absences, are determined by the internal regulations of each Ministry or Administrative Department,, which will be issued by the President of the Republic.

64. Thus, if an administrative unit within SECOFI is exercising powers, the functions of the unit must come from a "law" or from an "internal regulation" issued by the President of the Republic.²⁸ . A delegation of powers to an administrative unit must be published in the Diario Oficial. ²⁹ Secretaries of State may delegate their powers, except those that must be exercised personally, to the heads of administrative units that have been lawfully created and to other officials within those same units.³⁰

65. The LOAPF is based on, and implements, Article 90 of the Federal Constitution of Mexico, which states: "Federal Public Administration shall be centralized and decentralized according to the Organic Law issued by Congress, which shall distribute the business of the administrative order of the Federal Government, which shall be under the charge of the Secretaries of State and Administrative Departments...." 66. In addition, Article 89 of the Constitution confers related powers on the President of the Republic:

Artículo 89.—Las facultades y obligaciones del Presidente son las siguientes: I. Promulgar y ejecutar las leyes que expida el Congreso de la Unión, proveyendo en las esfera administrativa a su exacta observancia; ...

Article 89.—The power and duties of the President are the following: I. To promulgate and execute the laws enacted by the Congress of the Union providing for their exact observance in the administrative sphere; ...

67. Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has ruled that only a Law, or the President of Mexico acting through an Internal Regulation, may create those internal units in each ministry or secretariat in charge of exercising the powers bestowed on a public body:³¹

FACULTAD REGLAMENTARIA. INCLUYE LA CREACION DE AUTORIDADES Y LA DETERMINACION DE LAS QUE ESPECIFICAMENTE EJERCITARAN LAS FACULTADES CONCEDIDAS.

THE REGULATORY POWER ENCOMPASSES THE POWER TO CREATE AUTHORITIES AND TO DETERMINE WITH PRECISION THOSE THAT WILL EXERCISE GIVEN POWERS.

Está dentro de la facultad concedida al Presidente de la República por el artículo 89, fracción I, de la Constitución, crear autoridades que ejerzan las atribuciones asignadas por la ley de la materia a determinado organismo de la administración pública; igualmente, se encuentra dentro de dicha facultad el determinar las dependencias u órganos internos especializados a través de los cuales se deben ejercer las facultades concedidas por la ley a un organismo público . . . . Además, al tratarse de un organismo que forma parte de la administración pública, aun cuando sea un organismo descentralizado, es precisamente el Presidente de la República, titular de esa administración pública, quien constitucionalmente está facultado para determinar los órganos internos que ejercerán las facultades otorgadas por la ley, a efecto de hacer posible el cumplimiento de ésta.

It is within the regulatory power bestowed by Article 89 Section 1 of the Constitution on the President of the Republic, to create authorities which exercise the powers assigned by an applicable law to a particular organ of public administration. Similarly, it is within that power to determine the entities or specialized internal bodies through which the powers given to public bodies are to be exercised. . . . Furthermore, where a body which is part of the public administration is involved, even if it is a decentralized entity, it is precisely the President of the Republic, head of public administration, who is empowered by the constitution to determine the internal organs which will exercise the powers granted by the law, in order to carry out such law.

68. Under this jurisprudence, there is a serious question of whether DCC was lawfully created as an "authority" that could carry out any portion of the anti-dumping investigation with respect to third persons. DCC is not mentioned in any Law or in any Internal Regulation issued by the President of the Republic. Similarly, DGPCI was not established by any Law or Internal Regulation. Thus, neither of the two entities listed on the documents issued on behalf of the Investigating Authority before April 1, 1993 was lawfully established in the manner prescribed by the LAOPF.

69. 2. SECOFI argues that DCC was established by a General Manual of Organization published in the Diario Oficial in 1988 ("1988 Manual"). This 1988 Manual describes DCC as an Area Directorate not under DGPCI, but under a different General Directorate called the Dirección General de Servicios al Comercio Exterior ("DGSCE"). SECOFI claims that when the director of DCC (Mr. Velazquez) signed the various administrative acts between December 24, 1992, and April 1, 1993, DCC was a legally created authority of DGSCE. In this regard, DGSCE was properly established by an Internal Regulation. Article 16, Section 12 of the 1989 Internal Regulation of SECOFI (published in the Diario Oficial on June 5, 1989) states that DGSCE had the powers to:

Estudiar y proponer con la participación de las Direcciones Generales de Política de Comercio Exterior y de Negociaciones Comerciales Internacionales, la aplicación y monto de las cuotas compensatorias y cuotas antidumping, a mercancías que se importen en condiciones de prácticas desleales de comercio internacional, así como las salvaguardas cuando procedan en los términos establecidos por la Ley Reglamentaria del Artículo 131 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos en materia de comercio exterior.

Investigate and recommend with the participation of the General Directorate on Foreign Trade Policy and International Trade Negotiations, the application and amount of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, on goods imported through unfair international trade practices . . . under the terms of the Law Regulating Article 131 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

70. One problem with this argument is that it is doubtful whether a General Manual of Organization may lawfully create an administrative "authority" that may externally perform administrative acts that affect the interests of private persons. Article 19 of the Ley Organica de Administracion Publica Federal (LOAPF) discusses manuals of organization:

Artículo 19 El titular de cada Secretaria de Estado y Departamento Administrativo expedirá los manuales de organizacion, de procedimiento y de servicios al público necesarios para su funcionamiento los que deberán contener información sobre la estructura orgánica de la dependencia y las funciones de sus unidades administrativas, así como sobre los sistemas de comunicación y coordinación y los principales procedimientos administrativos que se establezcan. Los manuales y demás instrumentos de apoyo administrativo interno, deberán mantenerse permanentemente actualizados. Los manuales de organizacion general deberán publicarse en el Diario Oficial de la Federación.

Article 19 The head of every Secretariat of State and administrative department will issue manuals of organization, of proceedings and public services necessary for it to function; these shall contain information about the organic structure of the department and the functions of its administrative units, as well as the systems of communication and coordination and the principal administrative proceedings to be established. The manuals and other internal administrative tools shall be updated permanently. The manuals of general organization shall be published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion.

71. There is a thesis that suggests that a General Manual of Organization may create administrative units at least internally within a ministry:³²

AUTORIDAD ADMINSTRATIVA, COMPETENCIA DE LA. TRATANDOSE DE DIRECTORES DE AREA O FUNCIONARIOS DE MENOR RANGO, NO SON APLICABLES LAS NORMAS QUE PREVIENEN LAS FACULTADES DE SUS SUPERIORES JERARQUICOS.

ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, COMPETENCE, WHENEVER THERE ARE DIRECTORATES OF AREA OR OFFICIALS BELOW IN THE HIERARCHY THE NORMS THAT GRANT AUTHORITY TO THEIR SUPERIORS ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

Con arreglo a los artículos 14 al 19 de la Ley Orgánica de Administración Pública Federal, el despacho de los asuntos propios de cada Secretaría de Estado corresponde originalmente al titular del ramo, quien podrá auxiliarse de unidades administrativas que deberán estar previstas en el Reglamento Interior, cuya expedición es del resorte del Ejecutivo de la Unión o, en su caso, en el Manual de Organización General publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. En este sentido, para satisfacer el requisito de competencia tratándose de un Director de Area, no basta que en el Reglamento Interior se prevean las atribuciones de la Dirección General a la que se haya adscrito, pues el ámbito competencial así consagrado no puede interpretarse de manera extensiva al grado de autorizar la actuación de cualquier funcionario dependiente de aquélla. Al respecto, es de especial importancia advertir que una unidad administrativa supone la existencia de un órgano, es decir, la reunión de una persona física (titular) y un conjunto de facultades (competencia), por lo cual para efectos de la garantía de legalidad del Artículo 16 Constitucional, cada una de esas unidades administrativas al actuar conserva una individualidad propia no compartida con los demás

According to articles 14 to 19 of the Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal, the conduct of activities of each Secretariat of State is assigned to the head of such Secretariat, who may use administrative units established in an Internal Regulation issued by the Executive of the Union, or as the case may be, in a Manual General de Organization published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion. In this sense, in order to satisfy the competence requirement for a Directorate of Area, it is not enough that the Internal Regulation provides for the authority of the General Directorate on which the Directorate of Area depends. This is because competence established in that manner cannot be interpreted as being so extensive as to authorize the performance of any officer depending on the former [entity]. In this respect, it is important to point out that an administrative unit presupposes the existence of an [official] organ, that is to say, the combining of a physical person (holder) and a bundle of attributions (competence), in order to satisfy the guarantee of legality established in Article 16 of the Constitution; each one of such administrative units when performing [acts of authority] keeps its own individuality which it does not share with the others.

72. The following thesis indicates that although a Manual may create administrative units internally, an Internal Regulation may be necessary for an administrative unit like DCC to act in its own name externally.³³

REGLAMENTO INTERIOR DE LA SECRETARIA DE COMERCIO Y FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL, NO PREVE CON CARACTER DE AUTORIDAD AL DIRECTOR DE PRODUCTOS MANUFACTURADOS E INDUSTRIA BASICA.

INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE OFFICIAL POST OF DIRECTOR OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS AND BASIC INDUSTRY.

El Reglamento Interior de la Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, no prevé, la existencia legal del Director de Productos Manufacturados e Industria Básica, y no puede considerarse que el Manual General de Organización a que alude el artículo 8o. del reglamento citado, publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 20 de octubre de 1986, reformado por otro publicado en el mismo diario de 19 de septiembre de 1988, donde se menciona una dependencia de nombre similar a la que nos ocupa, le de vida jurídica ya que solo tiene funciones de orientación para las dependencias en, él indicadas y al público en general, de lo que se advierte que no puede tener carácter legislativo. En consecuencia, se debe concluir que el director en comento no existe con el carácter de autoridad, por lo que, con fundamento en lo dispuesto por el artículo 27, fraccion VI, del Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial es al Director General de Precios a quien le corresponde el tramitar y dictaminar las solicitudes para fijar o modificar precios y tarifas.

The Internal Regulations of the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development do not provide for the legal existence of the Director of Manufactured Products and Basic Industry. The general organization manual referred to in Article 8 of the regulations cited, published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion on October 20, 1986, amended by another manual published in the same Diario on September 19, 1988, where a unit with the same name as the one we are dealing with is mentioned, gives [the unit] legal existence only for the purpose of its orientation in relation to the entitiess mentioned in it and to the public in general. From this it can be concluded that it does not have legislative character. As a consequence, the conclusion that should be drawn is that the director in question does not exist as an official. Thus, based on Article 27, Fraction VI of the Internal Regulations of the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development, the General Director of Prices is the one in charge of processing and resolving the applications to set or change prices and tariffs.

73. Another precedent also supports this view:³⁴

MANUAL GENERAL DE ORGANIZACION DE LA SECRETARIA DEL TRABAJO Y PREVISION SOCIAL. NO PUEDE EQUIPARARSE A UN REGLAMENTO O LEY. INAPLICABILIDAD DEL.

GENERAL MANUAL OF ORGANIZATION OF THE SECRETARIAT OF LABOR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (SECRETARIA DE TRABAJO Y PREVISION SOCIAL) CANNOT BE LIKENED TO REGULATIONS OR LAW, INAPPLICABILITY OF.

El Subdirector "B" de Sanciones de la Dirección General de Asuntos Jurídicos de la Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social no es competente para emitir actos de molestia en ausencia de los Directores General de Asuntos Jurídicos y de Sanciones de la citada dependencia, ya que en el Manual General de Organización de la Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social que invoca para apoyar y justificar su competencia, este instrumento carece de toda fuerza legal pues dichos manuales de organización a que se refiere el articulo 19 de la Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal, no tienen naturaleza normativa, sino su papel simplemente es de ser una fuente de informacion actualizada de la organización y atribuciones de la estructura interna de cada Secretaría de Estado, pero sin que dicha información que sumariamente se publica en el Diario Oficial de la Federación pueda equipararse al carácter normativo que tienen los reglamentos interiores de las secretarías, que se prevén en el articulo 18 de la Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal; pero tampoco tienen un valor regulador jurídico ya que el papel de los manuales es solo contar con información actualizada de tipo meramente administrativo, pues ni la pluricitada Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal, que prevé su existencia, ni ninguna otra ley o dispositivo reglamentario le dan carácter normativo alguno. En consecuencia, el Manual de Organización que se cita no puede ser fuente de competencia de ninguna autoridad. Además, de acuerdo con el sistema legal vigente, los órganos administrativos y sus atribuciones deben recogerse en principio en los reglamentos interiores de las secretarías de Estado, y siendo en la especie que dicha Subdireccion "B" de sanciones no se encuentra prevista en el artículo 3 del Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, el órgano en cuestión es inexistente.

Vice-Director "B" of Sanctions of the General Directorate for Legal Matters of the Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare is not competent to issue actos of molestia during the absence of the General Director of Legal Matters and Sanctions of that section. The General Manual of Organization of the Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare that he relies on to support and justify his competence lacks any legal force because those organization manuals that Article 19 of the Federal Public Administration Act (Ley Organica de Administracion Publica Federal) refers to are not rule-making by nature. They only play a role as a source of updated information regarding the organization and attributions of each State Secretariat’s internal structure, but that information which is summarized and published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion cannot be likened to the rule-making status of the Internal Regulations of the Secretariats, provided for in Article 18 of the Federal Public Administration Act; nor do they have a regulatory legal effect since the role of manuals is to set out updated information of a purely administrative nature. Neither the cited Federal Public Administration Act, which provides for its existence, nor any other law or regulation gives it a rule-making function in any sense. Therefore, the Manual of Organization cited cannot be a source of any official’s competence. Apart from it, according to the law in effect, administrative bodies and their competence, in principle, must be provided for in the State Secretariat’s Internal Regulations, and since the under-Directorate "B" of Sanctions is not provided for in Article 3 of the Internal Regulations of the Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare, the body does not exist.

74. There is a second problem with the argument that the 1988 Manual gave DCC the authority to act externally. The 1988 Manual, which listed DCC as an Area Directorate under DGSCE, was abrogated by a 1989 General Manual of Organization ("1989 Manual"). The second transitory provision of the 1989 Manual, published in the Diario Oficial on June 5, 1989, states:

Se abroga el Manual General de Organización de la Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial (SECOFI), publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 19 de septiembre de 1988.

The General Manual of Organization of the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFI), published in the Diario Oficial of the Federation on September 19, 1988, is hereby abrogated.

75. Thus, the only organizational document that referred to DCC was repealed.

76. One may argue that the word "abrogated" should not be read literally. The 1989 Manual did not list any Area Directorates. Certainly, it was not the intent of the 1989 Manual to abolish all of SECOFI’s Area Directorates from the 1988 Manual. In fact, many Area Directorates continued to function internally within SECOFI. However, the Mexican legal system requires that competence toward third parties be based on certain formal legal acts. These formal legal acts are a first line of protection for private citizens against abuses of governmental authority.³⁵ When the 1989 Manual was "abrogated," there was no longer any published document that even purported to create DCC. Although DCC may have existed internally within SECOFI, it was no longer legally established by any legislative or regulatory act. It could not act externally in its own name as an "authority."

77. There is a final argument. Although DCC did not exist as an independent "authority" within SECOFI, DCC could be viewed as an informal part of DGSCE. Its "director," when administering this anti-dumping proceeding, was simply acting as a delegate for the director of DGSCE. As discussed in Part IV/A/2 of this Opinion, there is an "Acuerdo Delegatorio" that SECOFI published in the Diario Oficial on September 12, 1985 and that delegates certain powers to Area Directors and other persons.

78. The problem with saying that Mr. Velázquez acted as a delegate of the Director of DGSCE is that there is no evidence that DGSCE did anything in this anti-dumping proceeding. No document lists the name or initials of DGSCE. The administrative file does not even refer to DGSCE. At the hearing and in its brief, SECOFI did not argue that DGSCE or its director was actually involved in this anti-dumping proceeding. SECOFI attached as an annex to its brief two documents appointing Mr. Velázquez as an Area Director of DCC and later as an Adjunct Director of the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales.³⁶ These appointment documents, however, also do not mention DGSCE. Thus, it cannot be said that, before April 1, 1993, Mr. Velázquez was acting as an official of DGSCE.

79. For these reasons, the administrative acts in question between December 24, 1992 and April 1, 1993 were not by a competent official, because the administrative unit that purported to act was not lawfully created.³⁷ As discussed above, the most important of these administrative acts were the February 8, 1993 notifications and questionnaires sent to the U.S. exporters, and certain later acts denying extensions of time (particularly to Inland).

Continue on to Subsection C: The Legal duties and interests of the U.S. Exporters

¹⁹ Article 16(1) of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be disturbed (‘molestado’) in his person, family, domicile, documents or possessions, except by virtue of a written order issued by a competent authority stating the legal grounds and justification for the action taken."

²⁰ See judicial precedent: "Nullity hearing before the Tax Court of the Federation, Resource must be exhausted before placing the matter before a Constitutional hearing ... ". Tercer Tribunal Colegiado en materia administrativa del Primer Circuito. Semanario Judicial de la Federación, 7a. época, vols. 121-126, sexta parte, p. 109. Amparo en revisión 1049/78. Alicia Bernal Sánchez. 8 de marzo e 1979. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Sergio Hugo Chapital Gutiérrez.

²¹ In the United States, Panels do not have such jurisdiction. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(4)(B), NAFTA, Statement of Administrative Action 101. Where a participant in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding wishes to contest a final determination on constitutional grounds, the statute reserves jurisdiction over such issues to a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade. This is done to ensure that binational panels do not decide constitutional issues, and thereby raise the concern that such issues be decided other than by an Article III court.

²² See Article I of the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación, Diario Oficial, December 15, 1995.

²³ See Review 1649/87, Boletín del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación, 3a. época, año III, num. 26, Feb. 1990, p. 30; Review 310/86, Boletín del Tribunal Fiscal de la Federación,, 3a. época, año I, num. 4, Apr. 1988, p. 11.

²⁴ See Administrative Record (VC) Nos. 10, 13, 17, 19, 21, 58, 60, 62, 65, 67, 71, 73, 76, 78, 83, 88, 94, 96, 99, 101, 104, 107, 111, 113 and 119.

²⁵ Id. Nos. 32-57.

²⁶ These are identified in the administrative record as Nos. 64 and 75.

²⁷ As discussed in Part III/D of this Opinion, previous amparo decisions state that DGPCI was the administrative unit that carried out this part of the investigation, and conclude that DGPCI was not lawfully created.

²⁸ LOAPF, Article 16, 18.

²⁹ LOAPF, Article 16.

³⁰ LOAPF, Article, 14, 16.

³¹ Segunda Sala. Semanario Judicial de la Federación. 8a. época, tomo III, primera parte, p. 277. Amparo en revisión 6458/85. Francisco Javier Vázquez Balderas. 10. de febrero de 1989. 5 votos. Ponente: Manuel Gutiérrez de Velasco. Secretaria: Rosalba Becerril Velázquez. Amparo en revisión 1129/88. Compañía Mexicana de Ingeniería, Sociedad Anónima. 8 de junio de 1988. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Atanasio González Martínez. Secretaria: Alicia Rodríguez Cruz de Blanco (8a. época, tomo I, primera parte 1, p. 223). Amparo en revisión 480/84. Compañía Minera Río Colorado, S. A. 23 de agosto de 1984. Unanimidad de 4 votos. Ausente: Santiago Rodríguez Roldán. Ponente: Carlos del Río Rodríguez. Secretaria: Diana Bernal Ladrón Guevara (7a. época, vols. 187-192, tercera parte, p. 65)

³² Cuarto Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Administrativa del Primer Circuito. Semanario Judicial de la Federación. 8a. época, tomo III, segunda parte-1, p. 141. Amparo en revisión 673/85. Porfirio Mayorquín Ibarra. 12 de enero de 1988. Unanimidd de voto. Ponente: Gerardo David Góngora Pimentel. Secretaria: Adriana Leticia Campuzano Gallegos.

³³ Cuarto Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Administrativa del Primer Circuito. Semanario Judicial de la Federación. 8a. época, tomo III, segunda parte 2, p. 654. Amparo en revisión 474/89. Ciba Geigy Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. 16 de marzo de 1989. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Hilario Bárcenas Chávez. Secretario: Emiliano Hernández Salazar.

³⁴ Cuarto Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Administrativa del Primer Circuito. Semanario Judicial de la Federacion. 8a. época, tomo X, octubre, p. 373 Amparo directo 654/92. Ganaderos y Productores de Leche Pura, S.A. de C.V. 4 de junio de 1992. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: José Méndez Calderón. Secretaria: Silvia Martínez Saavedra.

³⁵ See José Ovalle Favela, Los Derechos del Pueblo Mexicano a través de su Constitución, 4a. ed., Cámara de Diputados-Porrúa, 1994, pp. 163-171, y Efraín Polo Bernal, Breviario de Garantías Individuales, México, Porrúa, 1993 pp. 172-173.

³⁶ See Constancia Única de Movimiento de Personal dated October 1, 1990 and Constancia Única de Movimiento de Personal dated March 1, 1993 in the Annex to the Brief of the Investigating Authority, March 3, 1995.

³⁷ Panelist Vega has decided to concur with the other members of this Panel in recognizing that the administrative actions taken by the DCC between December 24, 1992 and April 1, 1993 were not by a competent official, despite the fact that in a previous opinion he had argued the opposite. See his dissenting vote in case MEX-94- 1904-02. His view changed mainly because he became persuaded that according to the strict interpretation of NAFTA Article 1911 and Annex 1911, which defines as a "competent investigating authority" in the case of Mexico the "designated authority within the Secretariat of Trade and Industrial Development", it was the DGPCI, and Mr. Velázquez as its delegate, that actually conducted the antidumping investigation during the period at issue, and not the DGSCE, that had formally the powers to do so, but did not participate.