Calica Loses Zofemat Concession as Federal Tribunal Sides With Semarnat

Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo — A federal administrative court has upheld a ruling against Calizas Industriales del Carmen (Calica), now operating as Sac Tun, stripping the company of a concession covering federal maritime land along this Caribbean coast resort town.

The Full Court of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (TFJA) ruled unanimously that the company failed to prove its claim and confirmed the validity of a Feb. 7, 2024, resolution issued by the Environment and Natural Resources Ministry (Semarnat), according to case file 355/24-EAR-01-5.

The concession has been declared extinguished because its term expired, meaning Calica must vacate the surface area covered by the federal maritime-terrestrial zone, known in Mexico as the Zofemat.

A Dispute Dating Back to 2017

The case predates the closure of the company’s open-pit limestone mine. In February 2017, Calica asked Semarnat through a legal representative to extend its concession in the federal zone. The ministry denied the request in June of that year, setting off a legal process that appeared to end in 2024 when the company withdrew its claim.

Calica, however, said it never sent anyone to drop the proceeding and rejected the outcome, arguing that the person who appeared before the ministry did not have the authority to act on its behalf.

The company challenged the resolution and filed a nullity suit, contending that Semarnat had not properly verified the representative’s legal standing and that the decision violated the principles of legality and due process.

Semarnat defended its resolution, saying the representative did hold the legal authority to act and that officials proceeded accordingly.

Court Backs Semarnat

The tribunal found that the notarized power of attorney granted to the representative included both general and specific faculties to exercise rights and pursue actions before administrative authorities, and that his standing had already been recognized in an earlier nullity case involving the same concession.

Because Mexican law sets no requirement for such a step in this situation, Semarnat was not obligated to demand a ratification of the withdrawal, the court held.

In its final ruling, the court’s full bench decided unanimously that the plaintiff had not proven its claim and recognized the validity of the contested resolution, leaving the original judgment in place.