According to Art. 30.1 of Decree No. 79/2022 (which repeals Decree No. 5/2016), the following margins of preference shall apply to domestic bidders: (i) 15% of the contract value, excluding taxes, for public works contracts and contracts for the provision of services to domestic bidders; and (ii) 20% of the contract value, excluding taxes, for goods that are or have been produced in the country.
National or domestically produced products are considered to be those produced entirely in the country or those manufactured which, in the transformation process, must have an incorporation of national factors of at least 35% and, in the case of services, at least 60% of the wage bill must correspond to the remuneration of national workers (Art. 30.2). In addition, in accordance with Art. 30.5, in the case of goods, the producer's declaration model must demonstrate the incorporation of domestic factors, the value of which must correspond to at least 35% of the ex-works price of the finished product.

Mozambique is not a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), nor does it have observer status.

Mozambique is not a signatory of the 1996 World Trade Organization (WTO) Information Technology Agreement (ITA) nor the 2015 expansion (ITA II).

In February 2020, Mexico’s Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) issued guidelines under Technical Provision IFT-012-2019, which entered into force in February 2021 and has been reported to create a significant barrier to trade for mobile telecommunications products. Reports indicate that the framework may delay time-to-market by requiring in-country testing for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). It is also reported that the applicable requirements rely on standards considered outdated compared with more recent guidance from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), as well as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In addition, the rules reportedly entail duplicative testing and may create bottlenecks, as Mexico has only a limited number of accredited facilities capable of performing the required tests.

It is reported that the conformity procedures of the Agreement, under which the Plenary of the Federal Telecommunications Institute issues the Conformity Assessment Procedure for Telecommunications and Broadcasting, contain worrying language requiring the sharing of test reports that may contain in-depth confidential information about ICT products.

Mexico does not apply a horizontal de minimis threshold, which is the minimum value of goods below which customs do not charge duties, across all trading partners. Yet, Rule 3.7.35 of the General Foreign Trade Rules for 2025 provides duty relief to specific, origin-based categories. For shipments from the United States and Canada, the de minimis threshold for customs duties is USD 117, while for countries covered by certain trade agreements, including Panama, the Pacific Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the applicable de minimis threshold is USD 1.

Under Mexico’s Value Added Tax Law (LIVA), non-resident suppliers of digital services without an establishment in Mexico are subject to specific compliance obligations. In particular, Art. 18-D(VI) requires such suppliers to appoint a legal representative and provide an address in Mexican territory for notification and compliance-monitoring purposes. Where a non-resident supplier fails to comply with the relevant obligations, Art. 18-H BIS provides for the temporary blocking of access to the supplier’s digital service through Mexican telecommunications network concessionaires until compliance is achieved.
The applicability of these obligations depends on whether the activity qualifies as a “digital service” under Art. 18-B, which enumerates four categories, including (i) digital content, and (ii) digital intermediation between third-party suppliers and customers. In this regard, the SAT’s Criterion 40/IVA/N, published in the Official Gazette on 11 October 2024, broadens the interpretation of “digital intermediation services” by treating platforms as intermediaries where, for consideration, they enable customers to offer goods or services to third parties and allow suppliers and customers to agree via the platform on the transaction terms and price. The criterion further clarifies that this characterisation may apply even where the platform presents itself as merely an “online store,” if it also connects third-party suppliers with customers.

The Federal Law of Consumer Protection provides a comprehensive consumer protection framework that applies to online transactions. Art. 1, number VIII, enshrines consumer protection in digital transactions as a fundamental principle. Chapter VIII, BIS, of this law sets out consumer rights in transactions by means of electronic, optical, and other technologies. In addition, the Code of Commerce allows the use and validity of electronic signatures (whether simple or advanced) in any commercial or consumer transaction. Furthermore, the Federal Civil Code also establishes that, if express consent is required, it may be given by electronic means or any other technology.

Mexico has not signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.

In May 2000, Mexico amended several statutes, including the Code of Commerce, by introducing Title II on electronic commerce, drawing upon the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.

In August 2003, Mexico amended its Commercial Code by reforming and expanding Title II on electronic commerce, including the introduction of a chapter on foreign electronic signatures. These amendments draw on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures.

It is reported that Mexico provides insufficient prior notification of procedural changes, inconsistent interpretation of regulatory requirements at different border posts, and uneven border enforcement of Mexican standards and labelling rules. Some imports are still not allowed in all ports of entry. Restricting goods to certain ports has made it difficult for foreign exporters to arrange for transportation and logistics, especially for electronic commerce purchases involving SMEs.

It is reported that Mexico’s telecommunications and broadcasting conformity assessment procedure, published in the Official Gazette (DOF) on 25/02/2020, created administrative frictions for the importation and certification of second-hand, rebuilt, or refurbished ICT products. Reported frictions relate, in particular, to the “Family/Model” approach (Art. 26) and to the non-transferability of conformity documents (Art. 7), which may require the re-issuance of conformity documentation where different economic operators, such as the manufacturer, importer, or distributor, must rely on it.
While the original 2020 procedure effectively excluded non-new products from the main certification schemes, an amendment published in the DOF on 27/12/2021 introduced a pathway to certify “non-new products” under a specific scheme. However, restrictions reportedly remain, as non-new products continue to be confined to that route and are not generally eligible under the broader certification schemes.