The purge underway in Mexico’s Importers Registry is sending an unsettling signal that challenges traditional risk assessments: the largest number of removals is not due to sophisticated tax evasion schemes or a frontal assault on fraudulent practices. What is actually happening is a massive purge of taxpayers who, in effect, have ceased operations in foreign trade.
The data is conclusive. When cross-referencing the database of suspended taxpayers—from the Tax Administration Service (SAT) with data as of March 9 of this year—with Rule 1.3.3 of the General Rules for Foreign Trade—which describes the 50 grounds for suspension— the most prevalent ground by a wide margin is IV , applicable to those who have not conducted foreign trade operations for more than 12 months. In other words, the registry is primarily removing inactive importers.
This interpretation changes the perspective on the phenomenon. Because, objectively, such a large number of suspensions could be interpreted as a sign of widespread decline in compliance. But the rule requires clarification: not every suspension is synonymous with risk . While cause III points to tax non-compliance—such as failure to file returns—and V or VI correspond to administrative decisions made by the taxpayer, cause IV reflects a different phenomenon: the departure of players who are no longer operating.
That’s the key. What we’re seeing isn’t just corrective action against misconduct, but a process of cleaning up a registry that contained a significant number of taxpayers with no recent activity. Rather than a crackdown on non-compliance, what we’re seeing is a purge due to operational obsolescence.
This bias becomes more evident when observing recent trends. In 2024, causal factor IV already had significant weight , although it still shared space with other causes, particularly factor III. By 2025, however, the composition changes abruptly: factor IV comes to account for practically all records. The shift is not only quantitative; it is structural. The registry ceases to reflect a mosaic of risks and becomes a record that is emptied, primarily due to inactivity.
In that context, the size of the registry helps to understand the scale of the phenomenon. As of the end of February 2026, the Importers Registry had 103,231 active registrations , while the Importers Registry for Specific Sectors totaled 37,028 registrations, according to data from the SAT (Mexican Tax Administration Service).
But the most revealing contrast emerges when the actual operation is examined. In 2025, 10,944,186 customs declarations were registered, just 4% below 2024, of which more than 8.1 million corresponded to imports , according to data from the National Customs Agency of Mexico (ANAM) . In other words, while foreign trade maintains a high operational volume, the registry is being rapidly purged due to inactivity from some of its registered users.
This analysis is further supported by the performance of tax revenue. During 2025, income linked to foreign trade—particularly from VAT and IEPS (Special Tax on Production and Services)—maintained a positive performance, with double-digit annual real growth in several categories, led by VAT, which accounted for over 68% of total revenue . This dynamism in revenue collection confirms that, despite the purging of the Importers Registry, commercial activity is not only holding steady but also continuing to generate significant tax revenue. Essentially, trade is not slowing down; it is simply concentrating among fewer, but more active, players.
However, within this dominant trend, a different sign is beginning to emerge. In 2026—in the period from January to March alone—147 incidents were recorded related to cause IX of rule 1.3.3, a figure that already exceeds the behavior observed in previous years , where this cause did not surpass 100 annual records. This cause is activated when the tax authority is unable to locate the taxpayer at their tax domicile, or when said domicile does not meet the characteristics established in the Federal Tax Code, and may even be considered nonexistent. Although its impact is still marginal compared to the dominance of cause IV, its increase introduces a different nuance: it is not a matter of inactivity, but rather more direct signs of risk in locating and tracing the taxpayer.
The implications are significant. Interpreting these suspensions as a symptom of widespread non-compliance would lead to a misconception. In reality, a substantial portion of these suspensions correspond to companies that stopped importing, paused their operations, or failed to maintain a consistent presence in foreign trade . Under this logic, the purge reflects not only on the regulatory authority but also on the ecosystem itself: its turnover, its volatility, and, in certain segments, its fragility.
The cross-referencing by type of suspension reinforces this interpretation, according to the SAT document. Cause IV does not appear marginally or in a limited way, but rather almost entirely as TOTAL suspension . This suggests that these are not partial or corrective adjustments, but complete removals from the registry. The authority is not correcting minor deviations; it is eliminating records whose continued existence is no longer justified.
However, translating this snapshot into regulatory terms requires precision. The temptation to attribute these spikes to stricter regulations is strong, but the data alone do not support this. Cause IV was already defined in the same terms since the publication of the General Rules for Foreign Trade (RGCE) for 2025, and it remained without substantive changes in the 2026 version. Even the subsequent modifications to rule 1.3.3 did not affect this clause.
Therefore, if there was a significant change, it doesn’t appear to have stemmed from the regulation itself, but rather from its application. The shift observed from 2025 onward points more to an operational adjustment: a more intensive purging of the voter registry by the authorities, likely focused on clearing accumulated inactive records.
This nuance opens up a fundamental discussion. If the registry is being purged primarily due to inactivity, then the problem is not only one of compliance, but also of permanence . Importing into Mexico requires fiscal continuity, financial capacity, and operational discipline. In this context, prolonged inactivity is not just an administrative requirement: it can become a silent mechanism for exiting the system.
Viewed in this light, the suspended registry ceases to be merely an indicator of customs control. It also serves as a barometer of business dynamism in foreign trade. The question is no longer just how many were suspended, but how many lost the conditions—or incentives— to continue operating within the registry.
Comment and follow us on LinkedIn: @Enrique Duarte Rionda / @GrupoT21
