(Originally Published: July 10th, 2023)

The Administrative Procedure for Customs Matters, commonly known as “PAMA”, is conducted in the form of a trial started and decided directly by the Mexican customs authority when, as a result of enforcing its powers of customs inspection of merchandise, verification of merchandise in transit, or verification powers, import or export bound merchandise is precautionarily seized.

Mexican customs authorities may proceed with the precautionary seizure of merchandise and the means of transportation where such merchandise is transported, when:

A. Merchandise is brought into Mexican territory through an unauthorized location or when foreign merchandise in international transit deviates from fiscal routes or when such merchandise is transported by means different from those authorized for internal transit.

B. Merchandise is subject to import or export prohibitions, or it is merchandise that is subject to non-tariff regulations and restrictions referred to in Article 176 (Section II) of the Customs Law and compliance with such regulations and restrictions is not properly supported or, where applicable, the payment of compensatory fees has been omitted. A violation to Section II of Article 176 of the Customs Law means that the infringement that triggers the PAMA originates from the import or export of merchandise made without authorization from the competent authorities or without the electronic signature on the customs declaration showing the full or partial release of the authorization prior to carrying out customs clearance procedures, or without complying with other non-tariff regulations and restrictions issued in accordance with the Mexican Foreign Trade Law, except for cases involving Official Mexican Standards for commercial information, international agreements, public policy requirements, or any other applicable regulations.

Regarding Official Mexican Standards (“NOM’s”) for commercial information, the precautionary seizure of merchandise will apply only when non-compliance is detected by Customs authorities during a field audit or during a verification of merchandise in transit conducted by the Mexican customs authorities.

C. Existing customs documents of a specific transaction do not show that the merchandise has undergone the applicable procedures provided for in the Customs Law for its importation into Mexican territory, or for entry from the border strip area or border region to the rest of the country, and when legal status or legal possession of the merchandise cannot be substantiated, or when vehicles are driven by unauthorized individuals. In the case of passengers, the precautionary seizure will apply only to undeclared merchandise as well as the means of transportation if it is a privately owned vehicle, if it is a public service vehicle, precautionary seizure becomes applicable if the vehicle is intended for the exclusive use of the passenger or it is not providing its usual route service.

D. As a result of customs inspection of merchandise or verification of merchandise in transit, the customs authority detects undeclared merchandise or merchandise exceeding 10% of the total declared value of such merchandise in the customs documentation.

E. Cargo vehicles carrying imported merchandise are brought into the customs area without the corresponding customs declaration required for customs clearance.

F. The name, company’s name, or the address of the foreign supplier or the fiscal address of the importer, as indicated in the customs declaration, or alternatively, in the electronic transmission or consolidated notice referred to in Articles 36-A (which establishes the obligation for customs brokers, customs brokers offices, and for those who import or export merchandise from the Mexican territory for the purpose of placing them under a customs regime, to transmit electronically or digitally as attachments to the customs declaration, the information described in the aforementioned provision, which must include the receipt acknowledgment generated by the electronic customs system), 37-A, Section I (for those who decide to transmit in electronic format to customs authorities, in a single customs declaration covering various operations of a single taxpayer, the information regarding the merchandise being imported or exported from the Mexican territory), and 59-A of the Customs Law (which requires those who import or export merchandise from the Mexican territory for the purpose of placing them under a customs regime, to transmit electronically to customs authorities the information concerning their value and, where applicable, other data related to their commercialization, prior to customs clearance, under the terms and conditions established by the Mexican Treasury), considering, where applicable, the corresponding receipt acknowledgment, is false information or nonexistent, or when at the specified address the foreign supplier cannot be found.

G. The declared value in the customs declaration is less than 50% or more of the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise determined in accordance with the specific provisions of the Customs Law (Articles 72 and 73, which establish the methods of valuation for the transaction of merchandise), unless the mandatory guarantee has been provided through deposits in the customs guarantee accounts referred to in Article 86-A of this Law.

These are the circumstances that give rise to the precautionary seizure of merchandise and their means of transportation by Mexican customs authorities and, as a result, are the origin of the legal procedures known as PAMA’s.

Importers, exporters, and other third parties involved in the logistic services process of exporting or importing goods to and from the Mexican territory must take these conditions into account to establish full compliance with customs legal requirements and, consequently, have a smooth and safe customs clearance process.

SCyR México, S.C.

Legal Disclaimer:

The information provided herein does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available herein are for general informational purposes only.  This information may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This document may contain links to other third-party websites and documents. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user, or browser; we do not recommend or endorse the contents of said third-party sites or documents.

Readers of this document should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.  No reader, user, or browser of the website (or any other documents published by our law firm) should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this document without first seeking legal advice from counsel, or other professional advice. We disclaim all liability for actions you take or fail to take based on any content on this document.

Use of, and access to, this document or any of the links or resources contained within the document or our website do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, and their respective employers. The content on this posting is provided “as is”, no representations are made that the content is error-free.

September 12, 2025

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMA/TMEC/CUSMA) will undergo its first joint review on July 01, 2026, as mandated by Article 34.7 of the Agreement. While this formal meeting of the three signatory countries is still months away, each nation has already started or prepared its internal consultations to gather public and stakeholder input. These processes are critical for shaping national strategies and ensuring meaningful negotiations when the joint review takes place. The following is a brief analysis of the months ahead, considering the dates and milestones for said consultations that will complement trade discussions among the three parties.

The Agreement became effective on July 1st 2020, and pursuant to its Article 34.7 (Chapter 34), “On the sixth anniversary of the entry into force of this Agreement, the Commission shall meet to conduct a “joint review” of the operation of this Agreement, review any recommendations for action submitted by a Party, and decide on any appropriate actions.”. This means that the three signatories shall meet on July 1st, 2026, to conduct the “joint review” of the Agreement.

While the “joint review” meeting will take place in July 2026, internally, each signatory has its own separate set of rules (formal or informal), to conduct conversations, discussions, consultations and dialogues with their communities and relevant stakeholders to collect information prior to the 2026 date. These intramurals conversations are important to the overall trade discussions under the Agreement because they will be the collective basis for thorough assessments and fruitful trade review of the Agreement.

Prior to the July 2026 meeting the signatory members of the Agreement established their own rules to gather information from the public:

Canada: Following a notice published on the Canada Gazette on October 17th, 2024, Global Affairs Canada conducted consultations from August 17, 2024 to October 31, 2024 to collect “the views and experiences of Canadians and interested stakeholders regarding the operation of the CUSMA and how to potentially improve the Agreement in the context of the planned 2026 joint review”. The Canadians reported their conclusions on these consultations on January 2025.

United States of America: The process to collect opinions from the public in the US is regulated by Sec. 611(b)(1) of the ‘United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act’, which establishes that “at least 270 days before a joint review commences, the Trade Representative shall publish in the Federal Register a notice regarding the joint review and shall, as soon as possible following such publication, provide opportunity for the presentation of views relating to the operation of the USMCA, including a public hearing.”. Pursuant to this section, the Trade Representative shall publish the corresponding notice no later than October 4th, 2025.

In line with the above, at least 180 days before the joint review, “the Trade Representative shall report to the appropriate congressional committees regarding— (A) the assessment of the Trade Representative with respect to the operation of the USMCA; (B) the precise recommendation for action to be proposed at the review and the position of the United States with respect to whether to extend the term of the USMCA; (C) what, if any, prior efforts have been made to resolve any concern that underlies that recommendation or position; and (D) the views of the advisory committees established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155) regarding that recommendation or position.”. This includes the information regarding the views of the public, discussed in the previous paragraph.

México: There is no process that specifically establishes how to conduct consultations in connection with the joint review of the Agreement. However, the Mexican Senate and the different departments of the executive branch (particularly the Secretary of Economy) are the entities with sufficient authority to conduct consultations and negotiations with international trade partners. At this point, the Secretary of Economy has made public that the country has had conversations with various stakeholders of different industries and sectors, to gather information towards the joint review process.

The upcoming joint review of the Agreement represents a procedural milestone and an exceptional opportunity for North America’s economies to refine their trade partnership. The success of this process will hinge not only on the July 2026 meeting but also on the groundwork currently being laid through national consultations.

© SCYR México, S.C.

#USMCA #TMEC #CUSMA #JOINTREVIEW #TRADE #FREETRADE #TARIFF #CROSSBORDER #CONSULTANCY #CONSULTANTS #USA #MEXICO #CANADA #SANDIEGO #OILANDGAS #MANUFACTURE #REGULATORY #COMPLIANCE #REGULATORYCOMPLIANCE