Mexican Importers Challenge SE Anti-Dumping Duties on Shoes

Importing companies have launched a legal challenge against the compensatory duties on footwear from China, implemented by the Ministry of Economy (SE) in September, to counter alleged dumping practices.

The duties apply to shoes with a customs value below US$22.58 (MX$417.63) and range from US$0.54 to US$22.50 per pair, depending on the exporting Chinese company. These are in addition to a 35% tariff on all Chinese footwear imposed in April 2024 for a two-year period.

Federal judges have admitted at least 10 amparo lawsuits (constitutional protection claims). A collegiate tribunal granted a suspension to retailers Cuidado con el Perro and C&A Mexico on Oct. 7, allowing them to avoid the duties provisionally if they post a bond or other guarantee upon importation.

The tribunal cited the Amparo Law, which allows precautionary measures when duties are not considered acts prejudicial to social interest or public order, provided fiscal interests are secured.

Other lawsuits were filed by Grupo Axo, which controls brands including Nike, Old Navy, Guess, Brooks Brothers, Victoria’s Secret, Hollister, Tommy Hilfiger, and Coach. These cases either did not request suspensions or were initially denied. Separately, Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) has been litigating since July 2024 after the SE denied legal standing to participate in the process leading to the duties.

Domestic Industry Defense
The Chamber of the Footwear Industry of Guanajuato, representing about 70% of national production, has sought dismissal of the amparo lawsuits. The association includes many of the over 40 domestic producers recognized during the SE’s anti-dumping investigation, which began ex officio in April 2024 and targeted exports from 27 Chinese companies.

The duties have faced criticism from merchants and other groups, who note that Mexico imports roughly 23% of its footwear to meet demand. Critics argue the measures could double or triple the cost of the cheapest shoes, which are most accessible to low-income consumers.

The SE concluded that “the low price level of imports of the investigated product compared to domestic prices is linked to higher volumes and increased market share, to the detriment of national producers.”