The CCN Mexico Report™ is now available in audio format. Listen to the podcast and follow us on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Recently the National Commission of the National Council of the Maquiladora Export Industry (CNIME) and the Association ofMaquiladoras, A.C. (AMAC) presented to the Department of Economy a series of proposals contained in a document titled “Decree of theManufacturing Export Industry” (Decreto de la Industria Manufacturera de Exportación), with various development programs to increaseexports from those now in place (PITEX, ALTEX, PROSEC and Maquila). Additionally, it proposed to the Department of the Economy theconvenience of carrying out, among others, the following reforms to the Decree for the Development and Operation of the MaquiladoraExport Industry now in force: 1) the possibility of authorizing separate maquila programs to maquila companies that are subsidiaries ofMexican maquiladora operations; 2) the possibility that the subsidiary companies could have their own maquila programs with operationsdistinct from those contracted by the parent maquiladora company; 3) a change in the definition of service maquiladoras in order to eliminatethe condition that services be converted to merchandise, and to allow “Export Services”; 4) Expanding the definition of a maquiladora plantto include a fixed project oriented maquiladora, in order to facilitate outsourcing operations; 5) a change in the definition of “maquilaoperation,” eliminating the condition that it be subject to foreign merchandise temporarily imported and including the export of services; 6)simultaneous approval of PROSEC and ALTEX programs; 7) eliminating the requirement of formalizing (protocolizing) a Maquila ServiceAgreement before a notary public; 8) reducing the term for responding to maquila permit applications from 15 to 10 working days; 9)presenting documentary filings via electronic communications; and 10) transfers of finish products resulting from the production process.
The Mexican Supreme Court has sustained in previous cases offers of employment in labor lawsuits pursued by an employer when the employer has previously given notice to the Social Security office of the termination of such employee, as in cases of bad faith and, as a result, the employer has not had toprovide any proof concerning the facts surrounding such termination. Recently, the Court sustained that the deregistration of an employeebefore the Mexican Social Security institute on a date prior to that on which the employer offered to rehire such employee as part of a laborlawsuit also implies bad faith. In this regard, it is worth noting that an offer of employment must meet certain conditions in order to beconsidered as done in good faith. The second requirement is that the offer to rehire an employee must perfect the true intent of the employerto continue the labor relationship. In contrary cases, the offer will be considered as made in bad faith and will not be taken into account inevidence. In regard to the notice of termination of the employee before the Mexican Social Security Institute, by virtue of the case currentlybeing discussed, it is recommended that employers do not deregister their employees until they are sure rehiring will not take place, and waitfor a period of no fewer than 60 days from the date of the hearing at which rehiring is offered. See Case Decision 19/2006 by the SecondChamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in Private Session dated February 24, 2006.
Supreme Court of Mexico has identified through jurisprudence contradicting previous rulings the requirements that must be contained in acomplaint filed pursuant to an administrative and customs matter proceeding (PAMA). The Court established that the initial complaint mustcontain: i) the date of issuance and expiration of the identification credential of the person identified as having customs power of attorney, ii)the organization or agency that issued such credential, iii) the name and position of the person issuing the credential, as well as the name andperson to whom it is granted; iv) the date of issuance of the ruling or verification order, with corresponding number and the name of theorganization and officer of such organization who issued it, along with the name of the authorized person; and v) as the case may be,attachment of a copy of the documents containing said information. See Ninth Term: Second Chamber Source: Judicial Weekly of theFederation and its Gazette. Book: XXIII, May 2006 Decision: 2a/J.62/2006 Page: 277.
In 2005 the Federal Law of Fees, as it corresponds to the customs transmittal fee(known by its initials in Spanish, DTA), was changed in order to require a payment of eight per mil on all importations of foreignmerchandise, even when such importations are exempt from general import duties. As the DTA has been declared unconstitutional by theSupreme Court of Justice of the Nation, a new legislative act was required as a result of the appeal filed by various importers, in response towhich the court confirmed that Article 49, Section I of the Federal Law of Fees was unconstitutional because it violated constitutionalguaranties of proportionality and equitable taxation. See Jurisprudence. First Chamber. Ninth Term. Volume XXII, Page 43. September2005.
On June 6, 2006 amendments to the Mexican Federal Consumer Protection Law werepublished in the Official Journal of the Federation. The amendments establish that parties not regulated by financial law, and which carry outmutual insurance transactions with interest and pledges of assets, must register their form contracts (Adhesion Contracts) before the federalconsumer protection authorities, as well as to make available on a permanent basis the terms and conditions contained in their contracts,including annual interest rates. In addition, the amounts of fines that may be imposed on those companies failing to meet the law’sobligations have been increased.
On June 6, 2006 a Decree was published in the Official Journal of the Federationamending and adding to various provisions of the Mexican Federal Code of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Penal Code, which establishclearly that one is not obligated to provide testimony or evidence in a criminal proceeding with respect to information such individualreceives, knows of, or has in their possession concerning communications with attorneys, technical consultants, notaries public, ministers ofany denomination, journalists, medical surgeons or specialists and clinical psychologists, public servants and all other individuals whoperform other professional employment services, based on the law’s recognition of the need to know, preserve or maintain professionalsecrets and confidentiality with respect to matters related to the exercise of one’s profession. In case of one or more of the individualsmentioned above states his or her desire to provide such information, if they have the express consent of those who confided the secret tothem, said circumstance will be certified and the information may be provided through a declaration or testimony in a corresponding criminalproceeding. In addition, the Federal Penal Code has been amended to include sanctions for the criminal offence of abuse of authority andcrimes against the administration of justice, so that those individuals mentioned above may be obligated to provide the information theyobtained through their professional activities.
