The reform to the Customs Law approved yesterday by the Chamber of Deputies maintained stricter controls against undervaluation , although it leaves the subsequent definition of goods and procedures for applying precautionary seizures to customs authorities. This adjustment introduces the possibility of differentiated treatment in response to warnings from manufacturers, importers, and customs brokers regarding cargo detentions, liquidity issues, and potential disruptions in supply chains.
The bill was sent to the Senate for review, discussion, and potential approval. The version approved by the Finance and Public Credit Committee proposes that the decree take effect on January 1, 2027 , instead of the day after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), as initially proposed by the Executive branch.
The main change remains in Article 151, Section VII of the Customs Law: the requirement that the value declared in the customs declaration be 50% or more lower than the transaction value of identical or similar goods to trigger this ground for precautionary seizure is eliminated. The exception related to the provision of the guarantee stipulated in Article 86-A is also eliminated.
However, the ruling includes a second transitional provision stipulating that this provision will apply “to the goods and in accordance with the procedure determined in the regulations issued for this purpose by the competent customs authorities.” For goods other than those defined under this scheme, the authorities may establish a percentage difference in value that must be considered for proceeding with the seizure.
The provisions must be published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) no later than December 31, 2026. Until they are published, it remains to be seen which goods will be subject to the new controls without the current threshold, which will be subject to a percentage parameter, and how the procedure will be carried out. The transitional provision does not expressly establish a general exclusion for industrial inputs, capital goods, used goods, or temporary imports by IMMEX companies (manufacturing and export assembly companies that use a special customs regime).
This point partially addresses one of the main arguments presented during the commission’s previous meeting with foreign trade representatives : a price difference may be due to legitimate commercial conditions and does not necessarily indicate fraudulent activity. Participants requested that factors such as quality, brand, purchase volume, technical specifications, contracts, discounts, and condition be considered before impounding goods.
The automotive and auto parts industry warned that components classified under the same tariff heading can have different applications and prices. It was also pointed out that withholding a part can disrupt production lines that rely on synchronized deliveries, while deposits to replace an embargo tie up resources needed to maintain operations.
Other sectors, particularly footwear and alcoholic beverages, supported stronger tools against undervaluation, arguing that artificially low values create unfair competition and harm formal production. The discussion, therefore, focused not on the need to combat tax evasion , but on the evidence and procedures required to justify an audit, seizure, and subsequent release of the cargo.
The ruling maintains the addition to Article 144, allowing authorities to initiate verification procedures ex officio when the declared value is lower than that of identical or similar goods, as determined in accordance with Articles 72 and 73 of the Customs Law. The second transitional provision specifically addresses the grounds for seizure under Article 151 and therefore does not modify that provision regarding the initiation of audits.
It also retains the embargo substitution scheme provided for in Article 154 for goods not subject to estimated prices. If the value difference is less than 20%, the interested party may request the substitution by means of a cash deposit or a customs guarantee account; if it is 20% or more, by means of a cash deposit. In both cases, the interested party will have 10 business days from the notification of the start of the administrative procedure to submit the request.
The amount will correspond to the contributions and countervailing duties that would be incurred due to the difference between the declared value and the value determined by the authority. Thus, although a way remains to replace the seizure of goods, the financial treatment will depend on the magnitude of the identified difference.
In parallel, Article 153 maintains the obligation to resolve cases immediately, without imposing penalties, when documentary evidence refutes the grounds for the seizure or proves that the value was determined in accordance with the law. In such cases, the return of the merchandise, the release of the guarantee, or the return of the cash deposit will be ordered . However, the text does not include a specific timeframe in days for carrying out the physical release, one of the requests made by operators during the discussion.
The proposal also maintains the reduction from 50% to 20% of the value difference threshold provided for in the presumption of infringement of article 177, section XII. This assumption corresponds to goods introduced under regimes that allow for the determination of duties without paying them and maintains the other legal conditions, including that, if they had been destined for definitive importation, the payment of foreign trade taxes or countervailing duties would have been totally or partially omitted.
Along with these changes regarding valuation, the ruling incorporates specific penalties for hydrocarbons and petroleum products. The additions to sections I, II, and III of Article 185 establish fines of 50% to 100% of the commercial value of the goods when the corresponding violations involve these products. The commission justified the differentiated treatment due to their economic and fiscal significance, as well as their use in smuggling and control evasion schemes.
The document indicates that the modifications to Article 185 and the transitional provisions stem from two reservations presented by Carol Antonio Altamirano, president of the Finance and Public Credit Committee, and approved by its members. To support the provision on seizures, the committee proposed strengthening a control model based on risk identification and management , focusing oversight on transactions with the greatest potential to affect the accurate determination and payment of taxes.
With its submission to the Senate, the reform enters a new legislative phase. Its review will encompass a text that retains the main powers proposed by the Executive branch, but whose differentiated application will depend on subsequent administrative regulations . For companies and logistics operators, these provisions will be crucial in determining when a discrepancy in value will lead to an audit or the seizure of goods, and how they can document their transactions.
Comment and follow us on LinkedIn: @Enrique Duarte Rionda / @GrupoT21
