Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (1): 10-22

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Universidad Autónoma de Baja California ISSN 2594-1925

Volumen 9 (3): e492. Julio-Septiembre, 2026. https://doi.org/10.37636/recit.v9n3e492

ISSN 2594-1925

Estudio de casos

An analytical framework for country‑of‑origin determination in

Mexican‑assembled products within a nearshoring context

Un marco analítico para la determinación del país de origen en productos

ensamblados en México: implicaciones para el nearshoring

Francisco Iván Franco-Ortiz , Diana Sánchez-Partida , Patricia Cano-Olivos , Santiago

Omar Caballero-Morales

Faculty of Engineering, Logistics, Manufacturing and Automotive (FILMA), UPAEP – SECIHTI

Puebla, 21 South 1103 Barrio Santiago C.P 72410, Puebla, México.

Corresponding author: Francisco-Ivan Franco-Ortiz, Faculty of Engineering, Logistics, Manufacturing

and Automotive (FILMA), UPAEP – SECIHTI Puebla, 21 South 1103 Barrio Santiago C.P 72410, Puebla,

México. E-mail: franciscoivan.franco@upaep.edu.mx. ORCID: 0009-0000-5083-6437.

Received: April 29, 2026 Accepted: August 25, 2026 Published: September 11, 2026

Abstract. - This paper analyzes the elements that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) considers

when determining a product’s country of origin. It also provides an in‑depth assessment of the

manufacturing capabilities of potential suppliers for a weighing product, followed by a comparison of the

results obtained through the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) method. The findings show that a

product assembled in Mexico that contains components from other countries can still be declared as

“Mexican” if suppliers can demonstrate that the materials used to manufacture the product undergo a

substantial transformation within Mexico. Therefore, transferring operations from China to Tijuana is

feasible, and once the components from Mexican suppliers are approved by the company, there will be a

25% reduction in product cost due to the elimination of tariffs on exporting Chinese-made products to the

US.

Keywords: Manufacturing; Substantial transformation; Tariffs; Country of origin; Procurement.

Resumen. - Este trabajo analiza los aspectos que conforman el país de origen de un producto ante el

Departamento de Protección de Aduanas y Fronteras de los Estados Unidos, además de realizar un

análisis exhaustivo de las capacidades de manufactura de los proveedores potenciales de un producto de

pesaje, para luego comparar los resultados obtenidos mediante el método de Análisis Hierárquico de

Procesos (AHP). Los resultados muestran que es posible declarar un producto ensamblado en México

como mexicano ante las aduanas estadounidenses, siempre y cuando los proveedores puedan comprobar

que el material que fabrican sufre transformación substancial dentro de México, por lo que se concluye

que la transferencia de operaciones planteada desde China a Tijuana es factible, y, que una vez que los

componentes de los proveedores mexicanos sean aceptados por la compañía, habrá un 25% de ahorro en

el costo del producto, resultante por la eliminación del pago de los aranceles de exportar producto chino

hacia Estados Unidos.

Palabras clave: Manufactura; Transformación sustancial; Aranceles; País de origen; Proveeduría.

2 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

1. Introduction

The commercial war between China and the United States has been escalating in recent years. Since 2018,

the 25% tariffs imposed by the US to Chinese products [1] have generated significant impacts in the global

supply chains across the world affecting the manufacturing costs and the profit margins of companies who

rely on Chinese components, which has pushed the manufacturing industry to redesign their supply

network, favoring the creation of new localization strategies that are more resilient and less dependent on

Asian markets, this phenomena is now known as “nearshoring”.

The war on tariffs represents an outstanding opportunity for Latin American countries [2], especially for

Mexico, which is attractive to nearshoring given its proximity to the US and its commercial agreements.

Studies conducted between 2020 and 2023 [3] show that the nearshoring strategies adopted by companies

resulted in a 5.2% improvement in Mexico’s manufacturing sector, and, simultaneously, increased the

foreign investment by 11.4%.

In terms of money, specifically regarding China, its investment in Mexico totaled 1,041.1 million dollars

between 2018 and 2022 [4], most of which was directed to the manufacturing sector.

A comparison of exports to the US from Mexico and China after the COVID-19 pandemic. While both

countries recovered promptly, Mexico saw improvements in its supply chains, indicating that both

countries suffered disruptions. While both countries found ways to recover promptly, Mexico saw

improvements in its exports after the pandemic, while China did not [5]. This could suggest that some

companies have deviated part of their supply networks from China to Mexico.

When a component's source of supply is subbed, one must declare its country of origin, as it is the

component's “passport” that determines whether it can enter a given country, its tariffs, and its labeling

instructions [6]. When an assembly contains different components originating from different countries, a

detailed analysis must be conducted to determine which country of origin should be declared to customs.

An incorrect declaration of an assembly’s country of origin may result in severe audits by the CBP, slower

cross-border operations, and even the loss of the exporting fee [7].

In this context, determining the country of origin for products with components sourced from multiple

countries becomes a critical challenge for companies seeking to optimize costs while ensuring regulatory

compliance. This study examines the criteria used by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and

evaluates supplier capabilities for key components of a weighing product.

1.1. Problem Context

This work focuses on Mettler-Toledo, a leading manufacturer of weighing and analytical instruments,

whose operations in China are experiencing margin erosion due to tariffs on products exported to the

United States. Based on the criteria established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for determining a

product’s country of origin, the study analyzes the feasibility of transferring production processes to

Mexico, assessing local supplier capacity and the potential for substantial transformation to mitigate tariff

3 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

impacts. The article contributes to the literature on nearshoring and the reconfiguration of supply chains

amid increasing trade protectionism.

The goal of transferring operations from China to Mexico is to classify scales manufactured in Mexico as

“Made in Mexico” when exporting them to the United States and the rest of the world, even when these

scales contain components from China. Simply manufacturing in Mexico is not sufficient to claim the

“Made in Mexico” label; there is more to it.

A finished good’s country of origin is determined by its design, the manufacture of its components, and

its final assembly. The key is identifying which components are critical to the products’ functionality, and,

in complex products, such as electronic scales, this assessment requires a detailed analysis of the products’

bill of materials, just like the one Mettler Toledo performed on their scales, where the company has

determined the critical components of a scale are the printed circuit board assembly (PCBA), the platter,

the spider and the load cell.

The purchasing and compliance department of Mettler-Toledo examined all sourcing options for the

scales’ critical components under case number #N311705. It recognized that there is no determining factor

in evaluating a product's country of origin. The findings show that the best scenario for declaring the scales

as “Made in Mexico” is alternative #1 in table #1, where 3 of 4 critical components are sourced from

Mexican suppliers, and 1 is sourced from a Chinese supplier.

Table 1. Alternatives to declaring Mettler-Toledo’s scale as “Made in Mexico” based on the country of origin of its critical

components.

COO

PCBA

COO

Platter

COO

Spider

COO

Cell

% COO

MEX

Alt. 1

65% - 70%

Alt. 2

35% - 50%

Alt. 3

15% - 35%

Alt. 4

0% - 15%

Based on this, developing local suppliers is a key strategy to strengthen competitiveness in the industrial

sector, as building relationships with suppliers enables organizations to reduce costs, improve product

quality, and ensure the supply of components [9]. These practices have strengthened Mexico's value chain.

Relocating suppliers, government incentives, and the creation of strategic industrial clusters prove the

country’s ability to develop technical, competent, and specialized supply bases.

1.2. Evaluation criteria on developing Mexican suppliers for the critical components of a scale

1.2.1 Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA)

A printed circuit board assembly is integrated in mostly all the modern electronic products. It is made

from integrated chips, capacitors, resistors, and switches, which are positioned and soldered on a board

specifically designed for a given product, as shown in Figure 1.

4 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Figure 1. Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA).

In Mettler-Toledo’s scales, the PCBA interprets the information given by the load cell and transfers the

weight of a product into the scale’s display.

Due to the designs’ specifications, Mettler-Toledo’s PCBAs must undergo an In-Circuit Test (ICT) to

guarantee the assembly sequence has been thoroughly followed and to discard any possible defects on the

electronic components, and a Functional Circuit Test (FCT) after being turned on, so the voltage,

frequency, and current can be evaluated.

Both tests carry additional costs, which are factored into the non-recurring engineering (NRE) charges

suppliers estimate. It is evaluated as a decision variable in the PCBA bidding process, along with PCBA

costs, suppliers’ locations, components’ markups, assembly costs, sales, general, and administrative costs

(SG&A), and lead time.

The quote request (RFQ) was issued for a volume of 10,000 units per year. More than fifteen suppliers

were identified, and after carefully reviewing each site's location and capacity and discarding those that

did not meet Mettler-Toledo’s quality standards, just 5 suppliers were invited to participate.

Figure 2 shows the location of the suppliers invited to the PCBA RFQ.

Figure 2. Map of Mexican suppliers for PCBAs

5 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

To protect the company’s intellectual property, the 5 suppliers were asked to sign a Non-Disclosure

Agreement (NDA) before proceeding with the RFQ, but only 4 agreed.

An NDA clearly defines what information should be treated as “confidential” and establishes how it should

and should not be accessed [11].

All files needed to produce a quote for the PCBA design were shared with the 4 suppliers who signed the

NDA, but only 2 submitted proposals on time.

Table 2 compares the suppliers’ bids. Note that this study does not show actual costs; the price displayed

is a “should-cost” model developed by Mettler-Toledo’s strategic sourcing team. The percentages shown

in each vendor section indicate how close or far they fell from the baseline price used [12].

Table 2. PCBA Quote Comparison: Displaying the Evaluation Criteria and Contrasting Against the Company’s “Should Cost”

Model.

LOCATION

COST

MARK-UP

ASSEMBLY

SG&A

PROFIT

NRE

LEAD TIME

SHOULD COST

MODEL

$20.35

$0.85

$4.15

$1.45

$1.50

$15k

20 WEEKS

PCBA

SUPPLIER 1

+12%

-71%

-20%

-35%

+5%

+37%

PCBA

SUPPLIER 2

CJS

-11%

+93%

+20%

+36%

-6%

-12%

-10%

1.2.2 Platter

It is plate-shaped, as shown in Figure 3, and made of “304” stainless steel. This is the component where

the products being weighted rest while the weighting function is being executed.

It consists of an exterior radius and an interior radius, with a height difference between them large enough

for another component called “Spider” to fit. The Spider’s function is to transfer the weight of a product

to the load cell.

Figure 3. Platter.

After reviewing 14 sheet metal stamping suppliers in the Baja California region and evaluating their size

and location, 4 suppliers were shortlisted for the execution of the NDA portion of the bid.

Figure #4 shows the location of the suppliers invited to the platter RFQ.

6 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Figure 4. Map of Mexican suppliers for stainless steel platter.

The 4 suppliers agreed to the NDA’s terms and conditions, and the 2D & 3D files needed to produce a

quote were shared with them, along with all cosmetic specifications and the material safety data sheet

(MSDS) for the protective rubber installed after stamping. The comparison of the quotes is shown in Table

Table 3. Platter quote comparison: displaying the evaluation criteria and contrasting against the company’s “should cost”

model.

LOCATION

MATERIAL

RUBBER

ASSEMBLY

TOOLING

LEAD TIME

SHOULD COST

MODEL

304

ROHS

$15.70

$6,500

PLATTER

SUPPLIER 1

304

ROHS

+43%

-32%

-10%

PLATTER

SUPPLIER 2

304

ROHS

-43%

+22%

1.2.3 Spider

Casted from ADC12 Aluminum, this component sits within the Platter and helps balance the product's

weight and prevent reading errors in the load cell during the weighting process.

Figure 5. Spider.

7 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

A handful of suppliers with aluminum die-casting capabilities expressed interest in bidding on 10,000

units, most of them based in the country. Figure 6 maps the location of the vendors invited to sign an NDA

for this opportunity.

Figure 6. Map of Mexican suppliers for aluminum spider.

The 5 interested suppliers received a physical sample of the Spider, along with the 2D and 3D files needed

to quote.

Table 4 shows a contrast between the should-cost model generated by Mettler-Toledo’s strategic sourcing

team and the results from two different suppliers.

Table 4. Spider quote comparison: displaying the evaluation criteria and contrasting against the company’s “should cost”

model.

LOCATION

MATERIAL

DIE

CAST

MACHINING

PAINTING

PACKAGING

NRE

LEAD

TIME

SHOULD COST

MODEL

MEX

$0.65

$1.45

$3.50

$2.50

$0.07

$32,500

ADC12 DC

SUPPLIER 1

MEX

+28%

+34%

-38%

+11%

+20%

ADC12 DC

SUPPLIER 2

MEX

-34%

-43%

+8%

-12%

-20%

Since none of the identified suppliers has machining or painting capabilities, the company will need to

assess whether these jobs will be performed in its own machining center or sent to a third party.

1.2.4 Load cell

Its function is to convert the weight into an electrical signal, which the PCBA then interprets and displays

on the scale’s screen.

8 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

The weighting occurs when an object rests on a platform-platter, which transmits the object's weight to

the load cell, where a slight nuclear deformation results from the applied force. This creates a voltage

signal that the PCBA processes, then displays a visible message to the user on the scale’s screen.

Figure 7. Load cell.

Per Mettler-Toledo’s decision, the load cell will not be procured in Mexico. Figure #8 shows the location

of the load cell supplier in China.

Figure 8. Map of a Chinese supplier of the load cell.

2. Literature Review

This study applies the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to identify the best combination of Mexican

suppliers for 3 out of 4 critical components on the assembly of a Mettler-Toledo scale.

The AHP method is a decision-making tool often used to address multiple variables in a problem. Thomas

L. Saaty developed this methodology in the 1970’s. It was published in the 1980s, and, according to Saaty

himself, the AHP method consists of creating a comparative framework for evaluating variables, in which

the user compares alternatives and combines the results to identify the best decision [13].

Like studies that use the AHP method to select suppliers [14], this study follows the AHP method to

identify Mexican suppliers for 3 critical-to-function components.

The AHP method consists of 6 stages [15] where: 1) The problem is defined, 2) The evaluation criteria

are defined, 3) The alternatives are defined, 4) Hierarchy is defined, 5) Comparisons are made, 6) Results

are calculated, and decisions are made.

Similar studies [16] use the AHP method to evaluate suppliers, with the decisive factors often including

material costs, quality procedures, discounts offered, delivery time, and compliance, among others.

9 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Slight variations in the decisive factors have been reported in other studies [17], but, due to the nature of

this work and the key differences between each critical-to-function component in Mettler-Toledo’s scale,

each component needs its own selection criteria; therefore, 3 AHP processes will be needed.

Although the AHP methodology has been used in works focused on the country of origin, little has been

done to explore the correct classification of a product for export purposes, much less when a complex

assembly carries a wide array of components in its bill of materials from different countries.

Researchers have used the AHP method focusing on the country of origin [18]. Still, the main goal was to

minimize supply risks. Other works [19] utilize the AHP method to evaluate which aspects influence

Indian consumers' selection of a given product from specific countries. Another study [20] challenges the

effectiveness of declaring a product's correct country of origin in the Moroccan market. In contrast,

another study [21] compares decision-making factors in domestic or imported vehicles on the Iranian

market. Still, no other article focuses on the correct categorization of a product’s country of origin as this

work does.

3. Methodology

To improve the understanding of the methodology, Figure 9 presents a process flow diagram that

summarizes the evaluation framework, from the identification of critical components and supplier

selection to the application of the AHP model and the final country-of-origin determination.

For the AHP model, this work uses the Saaty scale [22] for each critical-to-function component of Mettler-

Toledo’s scale, as each supplier must be evaluated according to different needs and capacities.

The weighing of all variables in the AHP matrices used in this study was verified using equation (1), in

which a CR value < 1 is considered successful.

𝐶𝑅 =

CI =(Nmax − N)

(𝑁 − 1)

RI =(1.98)∗ (𝑁 − 2)

𝑁

(1)

Where:

 CR = Consistency Ratio

 CI = Consistency Index

 RI = Random Index

 Nmax = Sum of the multiplication of the variable matrix by the obtained weights

 N = Number of criteria

10 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Figure 9. Diagram process flow: component identification, AHP-based selection, and country-of-origin determination.

11 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

4. Results

4.2. AHP Method applied to PCBA bids

The weighting of the AHP matrices helped identify the priority of each of the PCBA’s variables. Equation

(2) confirmed that the weighting was successful, yielding a consistency ratio of 0.0981. The AHP method

indicates that a CR value <1 is considered acceptable.

𝐶𝑅 =0.1285

1.4850

(2)

The evaluation criteria for the PCBA evaluation are:

1. Location

2. Cost

3. Mark-Up

4. Assembly

5. Sales, General & Administration

6. Profit

7. NRE Charges

8. Lead Time

In summary:

 Location is 7 times more important than the material cost, and 3 times more important than the NRE

and lead time.

 Mark-Up is 3 times more important than location and other factors.

 The assembly cost is 3 times more important than location and other factors.

 SG&A is 3 times more important than location and other factors.

 Profit is 2 times more important than mark-up and SG&A, and 3 times more important than location

and assembly. Cost.

 NRE is 3 times more important than material cost and lead time.

 Lead time is 3 times more important than material cost.

Table #5 provides a detailed overview of the judgment relationships, Table #6 presents the criteria

weighting, and Table #7 shows the application of these variable weightings for each PCBA supplier based

on the results of their quotations.

12 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Table 5. Comparative prioritization of PCBA cost drivers and key decision factors.

Location

Material

Mark-UP

Assembly

SG&A

Profit

NRE

Lead Time

Location

1/7

1/3

Material

Mark-Up

1/3

1/7

1/3

Assembly

1/3

1/7

1/3

SG&A

1/3

1/7

1/3

1/7

1/5

Profit

1/3

1/9

1/2

1/3

1/2

1/7

1/5

NRE

1/3

Lead Time

1/3

TOTAL

15.33

2.35

23.50

18.00

26.83

32.00

8.29

5.73

Table 6. AHP weighting for PCBAs.

AHP Normalized Comparison Matrix

Weighting

Location

0.07

0.06

0.13

0.17

0.11

0.09

0.04

0.06

0.09

Material

0.46

0.43

0.30

0.39

0.26

0.28

0.36

0.52

0.37

Mark-Up

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.04

Assembly

0.02

0.06

0.13

0.06

0.11

0.09

0.04

0.06

0.07

SG&A

0.02

0.06

0.13

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.05

Proft

0.02

0.05

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

NRE

0.20

0.14

0.13

0.17

0.26

0.22

0.12

0.06

0.16

Lead Time

0.20

0.14

0.13

0.17

0.19

0.16

0.36

0.17

0.19

Table 7. AHP weighting Applied to PCBA quotes.

Location

Material

Mark-Up

Assembly

SG&A

Profit

NRE

Lead

Time

Priority

PCBA Supplier 1

0.75

0.42

1.00

0.75

0.83

0.44

6.6

PCBA Supplier 2

0.25

1.25

0.20

0.25

0.17

1.33

10.1

TOTAL

1.00

1.67

1.20

1.00

1.78

The application of the AHP method enabled a structured evaluation of the decision criteria and supplier

alternatives for each critical component. For the PCBA, the comparison matrix on Table 5 and its

normalized results (Table 6) reveal that material cost, lead time, and NRE are the most influential factors,

indicating a strong emphasis on cost efficiency and supply responsiveness.

When these weights are applied to the supplier quotations in Table 7, Supplier 2 achieves a higher overall

priority (10.1 vs. 6.6) due to its superior performance on high-impact variables such as material cost, NRE,

and lead time. This outcome demonstrates how the AHP framework integrates multiple criteria beyond

unit price, providing a more robust and balanced supplier selection.

13 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

4.3. AHP Method applied to Platter bids

The weighting in the AHP matrices helped identify the priority of each variable to be evaluated for the

Platter. It was verified that the weighting was carried out successfully using (3), yielding a result of 0.0865.

The AHP method indicates that a CR value < 1 is considered acceptable.

𝐶𝑅 =0.1285

1.4850

(3)

The criteria used for the Platter were:

1. Location

2. Type of Steel

3. Type of Rubber

4. Assembly Cost

5. NRE Charges

6. Lead Time

In summary:

 Location is 5 times more important than material type and other factors.

 Material type is 3 times more important than material cost.

 Rubber type is 5 times more important than location.

 NRE is 7 times more important than location.

 Lead time is 5 times more important than material type.

Table #8 provides a detailed comparison of the criteria, Table #9 presents the criteria weighting, and Table

#10 shows the application of these variable weightings for each Platter supplier based on the results of

their quotations.

Table 8. Comparative prioritization the platter’s cost drivers and key decision factors.

Location

Steel

Rubber

Assembly

NRE

Lead Time

Location

1/5

1/3

Steel

1/3

Rubber

1/5

1/3

Assembly

1/3

NRE

1/3

1/5

1/3

Lead Time

1/5

1/3

TOTAL

19.20

4.93

14.67

5.20

24.00

14.53

14 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Table 9. AHP weighting for platters.

AHP Normalized Comparison Matrix

Weighting

Location

0.05

0.01

0.26

0.02

0.36

0.26

0.16

Steel

0.26

0.05

0.26

0.02

0.16

0.26

0.17

Rubber

0.01

0.05

0.02

0.16

0.07

Assembly

0.16

0.05

0.26

0.02

0.13

NRE

0.26

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.01

0.06

Lead Time

0.26

0.01

0.02

0.16

0.26

0.05

0.13

Table 10. AHP weighting applied to platter quotes.

Location

Steel

Rubber

Assembly

NRE

Lead Time

Priority

Platter Supplier 1

0.50

0.28

0.50

0.10

2.30

0.50

8.7

Platter Supplier 2

0.50

2.50

0.50

0.90

0.46

0.50

10.6

TOTAL

1.00

2.78

1.00

2.76

1.00

The comparison matrix in Table 8 and the resulting weights in Table 9 show a more balanced distribution

across criteria, with steel type, location, assembly, and lead time emerging as key drivers.

The weighted evaluation on Table 10 identifies Supplier 2 as the preferred option due to its stronger

performance in critical technical and cost-related variables.

4.4. AHP method applied to Spider bids

The weighting in the AHP matrices helped identify the priority of each variable to be evaluated for the

Spider. It was verified that the weighting was carried out successfully using (4), yielding a result of 0.0918.

The AHP method indicates that a CR value < 1 is considered acceptable.

𝐶𝑅 =0.1364

1.4850

(4)

The criteria used to evaluate Spider were:

1. Location

2. Material Cost

3. Casting Cost

4. Machining Cost

5. Painting Cost

6. NRE Charges

7. Lead Time

In summary:

15 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

 Location is 5 times more important than material cost and other factors.

 Machining & Painting costs are 7 times more important than material costs.

 Packaging cost is 9 times more important than material cost.

 NRE charges are 3 times more important than lead time.

Table 11 provides a detailed comparison of the criteria, Table 12 presents the criteria weighting, and Table

13 shows the application of these variable weightings for each Spider supplier based on the results of their

quotations.

Table 11. Comparative prioritization the spider’s cost drivers and key decision factors.

Location

Material

Casting

Machining

Painting

Packaging

NRE

Lead Time

Location

1/5

1/7

Material

Casting

1/2

1/7

1/3

1/5

Machining

1/2

1/7

1/3

1/5

Painting

1/2

1/7

1/3

1/7

1/5

Packaging

1/2

1/9

1/2

1/3

1/2

1/7

1/5

$ NRE

1/3

Lead Time

1/3

TOTAL

20.00

2.41

21.83

19.00

28.50

31.00

8.15

5.28

Table 12. AHP weighting of the spider.

AHP Normalized Comparison Matrix

Weighting

Location

0.05

0.08

0.09

0.11

0.07

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.06

Material

0.25

0.42

0.32

0.37

0.25

0.29

0.37

0.57

0.35

Casting

0.03

0.06

0.05

0.02

0.11

0.06

0.04

0.05

Machining

0.03

0.06

0.14

0.05

0.11

0.10

0.04

0.07

Painting

0.03

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.03

Packaging

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.03

NRE

0.25

0.14

0.16

0.25

0.23

0.12

0.06

0.17

Lead Time

0.35

0.14

0.23

0.26

0.18

0.16

0.37

0.19

0.23

Table 13. AHP weighting applied to spider quotes.

Location

Material

Casting

Machining

Painting

Packaging

NRE

Lead

Time

Priority

Spider Supplier 1

0.50

2.00

1.50

0.50

0.30

1.00

1.50

6.4

Spider Supplier 2

0.50

0.29

0.30

0.50

1.50

0.33

0.30

13.3

TOTAL

1.00

2.29

1.80

1.00

1.80

1.33

1.80

16 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

The comparison matrix for the Spider, shown in Table 11, highlights the dominance of material cost, lead

time, and NRE, reflecting the importance of manufacturing complexity and raw material impact. The final

evaluation from Table 12 shows a significant advantage for Supplier 2, confirming its competitiveness

across the most relevant criteria. Overall, the results consistently demonstrate that Supplier 2 provides the

best alternative for each component, supporting the feasibility of sourcing critical parts locally under a

nearshoring strategy.

5. Discussions

Due to the adaptiveness nature of the AHP method, it can be used as a multi-criteria decision-making tool

during the supplier selection process. Evidence suggests that this methodology can support different

industries; a study for the automotive industry considered delivery, price, quality, and service as the main

weighting items [14].

And while the AHP method has been used on “hybrid ensemble” scenarios [23], there is no evidence of

its application to define a product’s country of origin based on its subcomponents -until today.

5.1. Future research

This study focuses specifically on assessing the country of origin of critical-to-function components on

weighing scales; however, the determination of a product’s country of origin can be carried out in the

same fashion for any assembly whose components originate from different countries. Future research may

reference this work to examine which components are critical to the functionality of an assembled product,

enabling more effective strategies for developing local suppliers.

Studies such as the one conducted by this company’s customs compliance team help establish precedents

regarding the importance of product‑specific expertise. They may also lead to the creation of new jobs

within companies that require technical knowledge to be conveyed to customs authorities. This would

require a framework for identifying or developing subject‑matter experts [24], with a specific focus on the

product’s assembly being submitted to the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

6. Conclusions

Understanding that in the case of complex products such as scales—which contain components originating

from different countries—assembling in Mexico is not sufficient to declare its exporting documents as

‘made in Mexico,’ this study provides a detailed evaluation of the functionality of the product in question

and, in collaboration with the customs compliance department and the United States Customs and Border

Protection agency, develops a case study that identifies which critical components must be manufactured

in Mexico for the scale to be declared as Mexican. This helps avoid additional charges when importing or

exporting the product, resulting from the tariff increases imposed since 2018.

Considering all scenarios evaluated by customs compliance subject matter experts, and contemplating that

3 of 4 critical-to-function components will be sourced in Mexico, Table 14 projects a probability of 65%

to 70% that the whole assembly can be declared as “Made in Mexico”, which is sufficient for Mettler-

Toledo to allow the progress of the project, even if the load cell will remain being sourced from China.

17 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Table 14. Probability of Declaring Mettler-Toledo’s Scale as “Made in Mexico” with the selected suppliers.

PCBA

Platter

Spider

Load Cell

% COO

MEX

Mettler-

Toledo’s Scale

MX PCBA

Supplier #2

MX Platter

Supplier #2

MX Spider

Supplier #2

CN Load Cell

Supplier

65% - 70%

The results show that a reduction of 25% in the product’s cost resulting from eliminating tariffs is feasible,

and can be reached once the 3 critical-to-function components being sourced in Mexico have been tested

and validated by Mettler-Toledo’s engineering and quality department, and once the logistics team notifies

the port authority about these changes. The product’s country of origin is classified properly as Mexico.

In conclusion, the determination of a finished product’s country of origin is driven by the functional

relevance of its critical-to-function components rather than by the total number of parts manufactured

domestically. It is further recommended that firms systematically document and preserve all evidence

related to the country-of-origin analysis of each component, as a preventive measure in anticipation of

potential audits or requests from customs authorities.

7. Authorship acknowledgement

Francisco-Ivan Franco-Ortiz: Ideation; Data analysis; Writing; Original draft. Diana Sánchez-Partida:

Methodology; Writing; Review and editing. Santiago-Omar Caballero-Morales: Methodology;

Methodological guidance. Patricia Cano-Olivos; Project Administration.

References

[1] A. Lopez-Peña y R. Mora-Vega, “La Guerra Comercial Entre Estados Unidos y China: Un Enfrentamiento Más Allá De

Los Aranceles”, InterSedes, vol. XX, no. 42, pp. 236-245, 2019, doi: 10.15517/isucr.v20i42.41853.

[2] A. Fernández Hernández y E. Bravo Benítez, “Potencialidad del nearshoring para el desarrollo económico de México”,

Región Científica, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 2023105, 2023, doi: 10.58763/rc2023105.

[3] G. D. Ramírez Sierra, A. A. González Martínez, F. F. Villegas Rojas y M. A. Monroy Cruz, “Impacto del nearshoring en

la actividad económica de México (2020-2023)”, Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía, vol. 56,

no. 220, pp. 125-152, 2025, doi: 10.22201/iiec.20078951e.2025.220.70230.

[4] J. Romero-Aguilar, “El nearshoring en México y su relación con China, Corea del Sur y Japón”, Revista Mexicana de

Estudios sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31-54, 2023, doi: 10.53897/RevPortes.2024.02.02.

[5] T. Stringer y M. Ramírez-Melgarejo, “Nearshoring to Mexico and US Supply Chain Resilience as a Response to the

COVID-19 Pandemic”, Findings, vol. 1, pp. 1-8, dic. 2023, doi: 10.32866/001c.91272.

[6] J. M. Peterson, “Substantial Transformation: The Worst Rule for Determining Origin of Goods - Except for All the Rest”,

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1065-1097, 2023. [En línea]. Disponible en:

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol56/iss4/3

[7] V. C. Jones y M. R. Rosenblum, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security”,

Congressional Research Service, Informe R43014, mar. 2013. [En línea]. Disponible en:

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/818204ef-3bf4-41d0-9fbf-4904dac87b3b/content

18 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

[8] S. A. Mack, “The country of origin, marking and application of Section 301 remedies of the FreshBase retail scale”, U.S.

Customs & Border Protection, 2020. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://rulings.cbp.gov/search?term=8423.81.0030

[9] M. Ahmed y L. Hendry, “Supplier development literature review and key future research areas”, International Journal of

Engineering and Technology Innovation, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 293-303, 2012.

[10] Y. Crama, J. Van De Klundert y F. C. R. Spieksma, “Production planning problems in printed circuit board assembly”,

Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 123, nos. 1–3, pp. 339–361, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0166-218X(01)00345-6.

[11] P. Witman, “The art and science of non-disclosure agreements”, Communications of the Association for Information

Systems, vol. 16, pp. 259-270, 2005, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.01611.

[12] E. M. Shehab y H. S. Abdalla, “Manufacturing cost modelling for concurrent product development”, Robotics and

Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 341–353, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0736-5845(01)00009-6.

[13] T. Saaty, “Fundamentals the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, en The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and

Environmental Decision Making, (Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol. 3), 2001, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2.

[14] F. Dweiri, S. Kumar y V. Jain, “Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in

automotive industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 62, pp. 273-283, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030.

[15] P. Bhutia y R. Phipon, “Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem”, IOSR Journal of

Engineering (IOSRJEN), vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 43-50, oct. 2012, doi: 10.9790/3021-021034350.

[16] P. Hruska, P. Prusa y D. Babic, “The use of AHP method for selection of supplier”, Transport, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 195-203,

2014, doi: 10.3846/16484142.2014.930928.

[17] G. Rajesh y P. Malliga, “Supplier Selection Based on AHP QFD Methodology”, Procedia Engineering, vol. 64, pp. 1283-

1292, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.209.

[18] B. Mirza Murtanza, “Fuzzy-AHP application to country risk management”, American Business Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.

109-116, 2003.

[19] A. Lohan, A. Ganguly y C. Kumar, “What’s foreign is better? A fuzzy AHP analysis to evaluate factors that influence

foreign product choice among Indian consumers”, International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.

460-487, 2020, doi: 10.13033/ijahp.v12i3.743.

[20] F. Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, R. Ihle y H. Elyoubi, “How successful is origin labeling in a developing country context?

Moroccan consumers’ preferences toward local products”, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 15, Art. no. 8433, 2021, doi:

10.3390/su13158433.

[21] S. Amiri y E. Yousefi, “The comparative analysis of affecting factors on purchasing domestic and imported cars in the

Iran Market – Using AHP Technique”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 142-150, 2011, doi:

10.5539/ijms.v3n2p142.

[22] T. L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol.

48, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 1990, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.

[23] S. Hosseni y A. Khaled, “A Hybrid ensemble and AHP approach for resilient supplier selection”, Journal of Intelligent

Manufacturing, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 207-228, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10845-016-1241-y.

[24] J. Mattoon, “Designing and developing technical curriculum: Finding the right subject matter expert”, Journal of STEM

Teacher Education, vol. 42, no. 2, Art. no. 5, pp. 61-76, 2005. [En línea]. Disponible en:

https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/jste/vol42/iss2/5

19 ISSN 2594-1925

Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (4): e492.

Morales

This text is protected by a Creative Commons 4.0.

You are free to share—copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format—and adapt the document—remix,

transform, and build upon the material—for any purpose, even commercially, provided you comply with the following

condition:

Attribution: You must give appropriate credit to the original work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were

made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use of the

work.

License summary - Full license text