Letter from the table: What should the chair ask for first?

RC/TR/2026/T.40 · 19 March 2026

To the members of the Trade Council

What should the chair ask for first?

I am writing from Guadalajara, where a cost estimate that is almost right can still be the wrong number for a small business. I am also writing as the chair of this council, which makes the question uncomfortable but necessary: what should the chair ask us to do first? Gather more stories, or agree on the details every story must record so that our evidence can lead to a usable standard?

Here is one entry from my Landed Cost Diary. On 29 September 2025, I confirmed a small consignment of business inputs. The commercial invoice was MXN 31,200. Before I committed, I asked the freight forwarder for a landed-cost estimate. On 6 October, the estimate came to MXN 44,700. I kept that figure in my cash plan. It was not a guarantee, but I treated it as a reasonable working number because I had asked for the cost of getting the goods to me, not just the cost of moving a box.

When the shipping documents were being prepared, I asked for the tariff classification and the assumptions behind the estimate. The answer was that the classification needed to be confirmed against the documents and the details of the goods. That is understandable: Mexican import charges are not one flat rate. The tariff fraction, origin and customs value matter, and the import VAT calculation has its own applicable base. Import procedures and declarations are handled through Mexico’s customs system, including ANAM and SAT. A forwarder’s early estimate cannot replace a customs declaration or a broker’s review.

But I still needed to decide how much money to reserve. On 20 October I was told that the estimate would need to be revised. The account statement I received after clearance showed MXN 4,680 for the general import duty, MXN 6,812 for import VAT, and MXN 3,900 in clearance, handling and storage charges. With the invoice and freight, the total came to MXN 52,992. That was MXN 8,292 above the estimate I had used. I received the consignment on 29 October.

I am not alleging that anyone broke a rule. The difference came from a chain of assumptions that I could not see clearly when I had to make the purchasing decision. Some charges were tax; some were service or time-related costs. They are not interchangeable, and neither is the remedy. A tariff threshold may help a small importer with compliance obligations, but it does not tell that importer whether a quoted landed cost includes classification uncertainty, handling, or the possibility of storage while paperwork is resolved.

I tried to reduce the uncertainty. I asked for the tariff fraction, the origin assumption, and a breakdown separating duties and taxes from freight and service charges. I saved the estimate, the revised information, and the final statement. I could not get a useful answer to every question before committing. Waiting for certainty was not a neutral option: the order itself had a deadline, and the business still had ordinary bills to pay.

The number I needed was not a promise that nothing could change. It was a clear account of what the estimate included, what it left out, and what could make it change.

My stance is amend. I support the Trade Council’s proposed direction: size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and a phase-in when new trade rules or tariffs apply to small traders. I ask that we amend the approach to include landed-cost transparency from forwarders in a practical form. For a small shipment, an estimate should separate the goods, freight and

insurance, estimated duties and taxes, service charges, and any known storage or handling assumptions. It should identify the tariff classification and origin assumptions used, say whether those points are confirmed or provisional, and give a dated range when the final amount cannot yet be known. If an assumption changes, the trader should receive a revised breakdown before avoidable charges accumulate, where the process allows it.

This would not make a forwarder responsible for setting tax law, nor would it make an estimate binding when facts change. It would make the uncertainty visible early enough for a trader to compare routes, ask a broker a better question, adjust a cash reserve, or decide not to place the order. The difference matters. “The total may change” is a warning without a decision tool. A range with named assumptions is something a person can plan around.

So I ask the chair—not only myself, but whoever is speaking for this table—to put two questions first in our evidence work. What information did the trader have before committing? And which later charges were caused by a change in classification, tax treatment, documentation, transport, or time? If we record those separately in the Landed Cost Diary, we can show whether a problem is a tariff problem, a communication problem, or both. We should ask members to keep estimates and final statements where they can, while removing names and identifying details.