Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Law and Practice: The Mexican Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws are similar in important respects to the unfair trade laws of Mexico’s NAFTA partners, the United States and Canada, there are significant procedural and substantive differences. In light of these differences, and given that Mexico is one of the WTO’s most frequent users of unfair trade laws (including at least 25 actions against United States producers in recent years), the subject warrants closer study and analysis by academics and practitioners alike. This article explores the subject of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws in detail by discussing their origins and historical development; comparing them to their US and Canadian counterparts; and guiding the reader through the life-cycle of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty cases. It also analyzes the various administrative and judicial review options, including NAFTA’s Chapter 19, along with relevant Mexican court, NAFTA binational panel and WTO Dispute Settlement Body jurisprudence. (The article in slightly different form is Chapter 5 in Trade Remedies in North America (Kluwer Law Int’l, 2010).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".