in Mexico the courts located in Mexico City, Federal District;
in Mexico. (i) in respect of taxes withheld at source, to income paid or credited on or after 1st January in the calendar year next following that in which the Agreement enters into force; and
(ii) in respect of other taxes, for taxable year beginning on or after 1st January in the calendar year next following that in which the Agreement enters into force.
in Mexico. (i) in respect of taxes withheld at source, to income paid or credited on or after 1st January in the calendar year next following that in which the notice of termination is given; and
(ii) in respect of other taxes, for taxable year beginning on or after 1st January in the calendar year next following that in which the notice of termination is given. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly authorized thereto, have signed this Agreement. DONE in duplicate at New Delhi this Tenth day of September, 2007, each in the Hindi, Spanish and English languages, all texts being equally authentic. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
in Mexico the federal Income-tax; (hereinafter referred to as “Mexican tax”).
in Mexico. Anti-Dumping Duties on Rice, Mexico contested the Panel's reliance on the Recommendation made by the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. In this regard the Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Xxxx noted that the Panel's reference to the Recommendation was made by it simply in order to show that its findings were not inconsistent with the Recommendation. Furthermore, the Appellate Body said the Recommendation was not a "decisive factor" in the Panel's decision.22
in Mexico. Corn Syrup, the Panel distinguished, for the purposes of Article 5.2, between information and analysis:
in Mexico. In January and March 2009, we were notified of two findings of presumptive responsibility against CEMEX issued by the Mexican Competition Authority (Comisión Federal de Competencia or “CFC”), alleging certain violations of Mexican antitrust laws. We believe these findings contain substantial violations of rights granted by the Mexican Constitution. In February 2009, we filed a constitutional challenge (juicio xx xxxxxx) before the Circuit Court in Monterrey, Mexico, as well as a denial of the allegations, with respect to the first case. The Monterrey Circuit Court determined that CEMEX lacked standing since the notice of presumptive responsibility did not affect any of CEMEX’s rights; therefore, CEMEX should wait until the CFC concluded its proceeding and issued a final ruling before raising its constitutional challenge again. However, in July 2010, in light of the possible violations to CEMEX’s constitutional rights, the CFC terminated the existing proceeding and reinitiated a new proceeding against CEMEX to cure such violations. We believe that Mexican law does not entitle the CFC to reinitiate a new proceeding but only to continue with the original one. In August 2010, we filed a separate constitutional challenge (juicio xx xxxxxx) before the District Court in Monterrey, Mexico, to argue against the reinitiated proceeding. The Monterrey District Court determined that the order to reinitiate the proceeding and the notice of presumptive responsibility did not affect any of CEMEX’s rights. CEMEX subsequently filed an appeal before the Monterrey District Court and the Monterrey Circuit Court determined that the CFC’s termination of the proceedings in July 2010 was illegal and that it notified the CFC to the effect that it complies with the resolution issued. In February 2012, CEMEX was fined for anticompetitive practices approximately Ps10.2 million (approximately U.S.$772,727.27 as of August 31, 2012, based on an exchange rate of Ps13.20 to U.S.$1.00) plus ordered to implement certain measures. CEMEX has appealed the resolution and denies any wrongdoing. In June 2012, the CFC confirmed its resolution. On July 2, 2012, CEMEX filed a separate constitutional challenge (juicio xx xxxxxx) before the District Court in Mexico D.F. As of August 31, 2012, a resolution regarding this constitutional challenge has not been issued. With respect to the second case, in April 2009, we filed a constitutional challenge (juicio xx xxxxxx) before the Circuit Court in Monterre...
in Mexico. (i) in respect of taxes withheld at source, to income paid or credited on or after the first day of January in the calendar year next following that in which the notice is given;
(ii) in respect of other taxes, for any taxable year beginning on or after the first day of January in the calendar year next following that in which the notice is given. IN WITNESS whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Convention. DONE in duplicate at Rome, this 17th day of December of two thousand and twelve, in the Spanish and English languages, both texts being equally authentic. At the moment of signing the Convention this day concluded between the United Mexican States and Malta for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, the undersigned have agreed upon the following provisions which shall be an integral part of the Convention.
1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall by mutual agreement settle the mode of application of paragraph 4 of Article 4 and subparagraph f), paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention.
2. Ad paragraph 3 of Article 13
I. For purposes of paragraph 3 of Article 13, gains from the alienation of shares of a company resident in one of the States shall be taxable only in the other State, if:
in Mexico. Anti-Dumping Duties on Rice, Mexico argued that the Panel should have found that Mexico's interpretation concerning the "integration" of the data collection period was permissible under Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Considering this argument, the Appellate Body noted that the issue before the Panel was the manner in which Economía 43 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, paras. 108-110. 44 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 119. 45 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 114. 46 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 118. 47 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 167. conducted the injury analysis, not the interpretation of a specific provision of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Appellate Body supported the view expressed by the Panel that the data on the basis of which a determination of injury caused by dumping is made may relate to a past period, to the extent this information is relevant with regard to the current situation. It thus concluded that the Panel's view as such was compatible with Mexico's own reading of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, according to which using data relating to a past period does not, per se, entail a violation of that Agreement. Thus, Mexico's argument regarding Article 17.6(ii) was without merit.48