The Truth Behind the Mexican Footwear War vs. CHINA

Interview by: Karl Manrique

Months ago, the news was filled with words like de minimis and antidumping —terms unfamiliar to many. At that time, social media was flooded with content discussing these issues with much confusion; some users copied fragments to create their own posts, while others claimed that the entry of Chinese footwear and platforms like Shein into the country would be banned.

For this reason, we decided to take the opportunity to conduct this interview with Alejandro Gómez Támez, an economics expert who was directly involved in the antidumping process against Chinese footwear from the very beginning, to have him explain these decrees in detail.

Alejandro is an economist from the Tecnológico de Monterrey and holds a Master’s degree in Development Policy and Public Administration from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in the United States. He currently serves as Director General of Concamin Nacional and is the former Executive President of CICEG (Chamber of the Footwear Industry of the State of Guanajuato), an institution where he collaborated for 12 years. Today, he shares his economic analyses and perspectives through his newsletter and podcast ECONOMEX, and is the founder and director of the consulting firm GAEAP.

Without a doubt, Alejandro is someone who knows the footwear sector in depth and its challenges over the years, as well as the tariff issue and everything behind the decrees published this year by the federal government regarding temporary imports and the antidumping procedure. In this interview, he explains what these actions mean, how they came about, the challenges faced by the footwear industry, and what can now be expected for companies in the country —and even in other sectors.

FASHION THINKING: Recently, the Official Gazette of the Federation published the closure of the antidumping procedure on footwear imports from China. Why was this process initiated, and what was the context of the Mexican footwear sector when that decision was made?

ALEJANDRO GÓMEZ TAMEZ: The antidumping procedure was initiated as an urgent measure to stop the severe distortion caused by footwear imports from China, which entered the country at artificially low prices—well below domestic production costs. This phenomenon directly affected the competitiveness of Mexican manufacturers, who were facing a constant loss of market share and severe pressure on their profit margins. The situation resulted from unfair trade practices, documented with technical and economic evidence by the Chamber of the Footwear Industry of the State of Guanajuato (CICEG), which formally requested that the Secretaría de Economía open an investigation to prove the existence of dumping and the resulting harm to the national industry.

At the time the decision to promote this process was made, the footwear industry was going through one of its worst crises in decades. The sector’s GDP had been showing sustained declines since 2023, operating around 20% below pre-pandemic levels. This contraction was compounded by illegal or undervalued imports, technical smuggling, operations under the de minimis scheme, and abuses in the use of the IMMEX program, which allowed finished footwear to enter the country without paying the corresponding taxes. The federal government’s trade defense mechanisms and enforcement policies had proven insufficient to stop the expansion of Asian imports, which were growing rapidly at prices that didn’t even cover the cost of raw materials.

The context also showed labor deterioration: between 2019 and 2024, nearly 30,000 formal jobs were lost nationwide in the industry; capacity utilization fell to around 55%; and employment in Guanajuato —the heart of the leather–footwear cluster— showed annual declines of around 6%. The fall in production and the saturation of the domestic market with cheap imported footwear led to a loss of confidence in industrial policy, prompting the sector to organize a technical and legal defense strategy. Thus, CICEG, together with CANAICAL and CICEJ, documented the economic damage and submitted the necessary studies to support the investigation.

In that context, the antidumping investigation became a critical step to protect national manufacturing, restore fair competition conditions, and send a signal of support to producers operating within the law. The measure was not only an economic necessity but also an institutional defense of Mexican industry and employment against unfair practices that threatened to dismantle an entire strategic production chain.

FT: In recent months, much has been said about the term antidumping, but not everyone understands its scope. Could you clearly explain what “antidumping” really means and what it implies for a sector when such a measure is applied or lifted?

AGT: The term antidumping refers to a trade defense measure that countries apply when they confirm that an imported product is being sold in their territory at a price lower than that in its country of origin —or even below its cost of production. This practice, known as “dumping,” is a form of unfair competition, as it seeks to gain market share through artificially low prices that ultimately displace domestic production. When an industry proves that it is being harmed by such operations, it can request that the competent authority (in Mexico, the Secretaría de Economía ) initiate an investigation and, if necessary, impose corrective measures.

The goal of the antidumping procedure is not to close trade or impose arbitrary barriers but to restore fair competition conditions. The investigation compares prices, margins, and volumes to determine whether there is price discrimination and demonstrable harm to the industry. If both conditions are confirmed, the authority establishes a compensatory duty—a charge on the affected imports to neutralize the detected dumping margin. In the case of Chinese footwear, for example, a reference price of USD 22.58 per pair was set, and imports entering the country below that value must pay the difference as a compensatory fee, with maximum amounts ranging from USD 0.54 to USD 22.50 depending on the exporting company.

When an antidumping measure takes effect, it immediately corrects the market. It forces importers to declare real values, reduces pressure on domestic producers, and often enables job and production recovery. It also sends a confidence signal to investors and workers, showing that the State is willing to defend legality against unfair practices. However, lifting such a measure without balanced conditions can be devastating, as it would once again open the door to massive undervalued imports, quickly eroding the industry’s progress.

In simple terms, antidumping measures work as a “leveler of the playing field”: they do not prohibit imports, but they require prices to reflect their real value and not predatory practices. For sectors such as footwear, where labor and production costs in Asia are much lower, these measures are vital to preserve national manufacturing and prevent competition based on illegality and exploitation, rather than on productivity, innovation and quality.

The objective of the antidumping procedure is not to close trade or impose arbitrary barriers, but to restore conditions of fair competition.

FT: When and how did the footwear guild formally decide to push this procedure? Tell us how it was conceived and what the first steps were.

AGT: The formal push for the antidumping procedure was conceived at a time when the footwear sector had practically exhausted all channels of dialogue with federal authorities without obtaining concrete results to confront the uncontrolled growth of Chinese imports. Since November 2023, CICEG, together with the National Chamber of the Footwear Industry (CANAICAL) and the Jalisco Footwear Chamber (CICEJ), accumulated evidence of the existence of dumping, with the technical support of specialists who analyzed prices, undervaluation margins and import volumes. After verifying that entry prices into the country were even below the international cost of raw materials, the chambers filed a formal request in November of that year with the Secretaría de Economía to initiate the antidumping procedure, seeking to stop the unfair competition that was severely affecting the national industry.

The decision was not improvised nor political, but the result of technical and collective work within the guild. At the request of the Secretaría de Economía, CICEG carried out a feasibility study to determine which types of footwear showed unquestionable economic harm. Originally it was contemplated to include footwear from not only China, but also Vietnam and Indonesia in the investigation, but after exhaustive analysis it was decided to concentrate efforts on footwear of Chinese origin, where the damage was clearer and the evidence was compelling. This focus reduced the risk of the investigation being dismissed and increased the case’s probability of success.

The process began with a broad call to manufacturers from the León cluster and other producing regions, to gather financial, productive and commercial information directly from affected companies. The response was enthusiastic: tens of factories submitted financial statements, production volumes, costs and domestic sales, allowing CICEG to compile a robust dossier based on verifiable information. This database —which represented more than 40% of national production— became the backbone of the technical file presented to the authority, demonstrating convincingly the existence of price discrimination and the economic damage to the sector.

Thanks to this collective effort, on April 26, 2024 the antidumping investigation was officially initiated. From then on, the chambers accompanied the companies throughout the process: they responded to requests, participated in public hearings and maintained constant communication with the Secretaría de Economía. The case consolidated as an example of guild organization and industrial defense, in which the unity of the footwear sector was key to ensuring that the investigation progressed with technical rigor and institutional legitimacy.

FT: In addition to the issue of Chinese footwear, the sector faces structural problems such as outright smuggling and unfair competition. How serious is this phenomenon today and how does it impact the national industry?

AGT: Outright smuggling and unfair competition today constitute one of the most serious and persistent threats to the national footwear industry. This phenomenon has intensified in recent years and operates through different channels: from the illegal entry of goods without customs registration to the abusive use of programs such as IMMEX or the de minimis scheme, which allow the entry of finished footwear at absurdly low prices and without paying the corresponding taxes. According to the most recent data from ANAM, in 2024 alone the volume of pairs imported below the cost of raw materials increased by more than 15%, exceeding 51 million pairs. This implies that more than a third of all footwear imports enter the country under undervaluation conditions, directly affecting the operation of thousands of Mexican companies.