The Carta Porte 3.1 complement is the current version of the Mexican electronic tax voucher (CFDI) complement that documents goods transport in national territory: origin and destination, merchandise, transport mode, permits, and figures. It travels in the same CFDI (income or transfer, depending on the case), is issued on CFDI 4.0, and is stamped via an Authorized Certification Provider (PAC).
If your team still says “optional until September 2021,” they are reading history. From 17 July 2024 the SAT only recognizes version 3.1. In 2026 the standard is still there; what changes are catalogs and the operating discipline of not paying freight on a broken XML.
- current version (since Jul 2024)
- 3.1
- host voucher for the complement
- CFDI 4.0
- road · sea · air · rail
- 4 modes
- tax of the move, not delivery
- ≠ POD
Cluster: what is Carta Porte · IdCCP · Carta Porte XML · 3.1 step by step · Mexico freight tax · 3.1 rejections.
What Carta Porte 3.1 complement is
In one usable sentence: it is the structured layer the SAT requires to support goods movement in Mexico. It is not the trip PDF and not proof of delivery (POD). It is the XML node block the PAC validates at stamping.
Usual legal anchors: Arts. 29 and 29-A of the Mexican Federal Tax Code (CFF) and the Miscelánea Fiscal (RMF) section on issuing CFDI with Carta Porte complement (rule series 2.7.7). Confirm the current text on the SAT portal / DOF.
Who issues: income vs transfer
The question that unblocks accounts payable and traffic is not “do we have Carta Porte?” but who must issue which CFDI type.
Carrier / who charges
- Provides transport for consideration
- Issues income CFDI + 3.1 complement
- Recipient is usually the freight buyer
Owner with own means
- Moves own goods without charging for that move
- Issues transfer CFDI + 3.1 complement
- Does not replace the sales invoice for the goods
Freight hired to a carrier
CFDI type: Income + 3.1
Who issues: Carrier
Note: Shipper verifies XML before pay
Own goods on own fleet
CFDI type: Transfer + 3.1
Who issues: Owner / possessor
Note: No freight charge on that voucher
Intermediary that coordinates and subcontracts
CFDI type: Depends on the leg
Who issues: Who runs the leg / RMF rules
Note: Do not mix your fee with the carrier CFDI
Dedicated transport (RMF relief)
CFDI type: Income without CP + customer transfer with CP
Who issues: Per contract and applicable rule
Note: If contract blocks the relief, back to income + CP
Transport modes it covers
The complement applies to moves in national territory across the modes the SAT covers in its filling guides. The node changes; the duty to document the move does not.
Road (auto transport)
What you document: SICT permit, vehicle config, plates, driver, insurance when due
Where it usually breaks: Stale catalog · gross weight · incomplete figures
Maritime / inland waterway
What you document: Vessel/container data; trailers on ferry when due
Where it usually breaks: RemolquesCCP / related IdCCP poorly linked
Air
What you document: Air mode and goods per the filling guide
Where it usually breaks: Air parcel: master waybill vs customer invoices
Rail
What you document: Rail mode and goods data
Where it usually breaks: Mode changes without relating folios
What changed from 3.0 to 3.1
Version 3.1 took effect on 17 July 2024 with no useful coexistence window: 3.0 stopped being valid the day before. Changes vs 3.0 are targeted; several “famous” nodes already existed in 3.0 and remain in 3.1.
Customs regime
In 3.1: RegímenesAduaneros / RegimenAduaneroCCP node (multiple regimes, up to 10)
Operating impact: Cross-border loads with mixed regimes in one document
Tariff fraction (HS)
In 3.1: Becomes optional (forced validation removed)
Operating impact: Fewer rejects for empty HS; do not invent a key
Trailers in container / ferry
In 3.1: RemolquesCCP node (SubTipoRemCCP, PlacaCCP) under Contenedor
Operating impact: Ferry + trailer: link related IdCCP from road CFDI
Catalogs
In 3.1: Updates (hazmat, ocean authorizations, etc.)
Operating impact: Stamping with a stale catalog rejects even if the PDF “looks fine”
IdCCP
In 3.1: Still the complement folio (CCC prefix / RFC 4122 pattern)
Operating impact: Generated by the issuing system; do not hand-invent it for customs
Gross vehicle weight
In 3.1: Definition aligned to NOM-012 (vehicle + load)
Operating impact: Typical fail: tare only or cargo only
Reverse logistics / pickup
In 3.1: Attribute for return / collection legs when due
Operating impact: Useful on ferry/return; do not double-count goods
Isthmus of Tehuantepec
In 3.1: RegistroISTMO node + polo catalog when claiming the benefit
Operating impact: Only if origin, intermediates, and destination are in-region
Hazmat / COFEPRIS
In 3.1: Keys and sanitary-authorization fields when the product requires them
Operating impact: Insurance and permits must match the current catalog
In 2026 the SAT still publishes catalog updates for complement 3.1 (not an automatic “version 3.2”). If your PAC or TMS does not refresh keys, rejection hits at stamping, not in the vendor’s Word doc.
Fields and nodes that matter
You do not need to memorize the full standard. You need a map of what accounts payable and operations match before releasing payment or rolling to the highway.
IdCCP / version
What must match: Complement 3.1 + complement folio
Typical fail: Old version or malformed IdCCP
Locations
What must match: Origin, intermediates, destination · ZIP / state / country
Typical fail: Invented ZIP · incoherent coords
Goods
What must match: ProdServ CP keys, quantities, weights, packing
Typical fail: Stale catalog · generic description
Mode / auto transport
What must match: SICT permit, config, plates, insurance
Typical fail: Wrong vehicle config
Figures
What must match: Driver / owner / lessor as applicable
Typical fail: Incomplete RFC · missing license
Foreign trade
What must match: TranspInternac, regimes, pedimento when due
Typical fail: Single regime when several apply
When yes and when no
2021 blogs that say “still optional” are wrong for 2026. Real exceptions live in the RMF and SAT FAQs: read them as narrow cases, not a license to roll without a file.
Federal / long-haul freight with a carrier
3.1 complement?: Yes (income + 3.1)
What to do: Require parseable XML on the trip file
Own goods on own unit (not local / not C2≤30 km)
3.1 complement?: Yes (transfer + 3.1)
What to do: Issue before rolling; do not improvise at a checkpoint
Local move (per SAT/RMF assumptions)
3.1 complement?: May not apply
What to do: Document the assumption; do not use “local” as a catch-all
Vehicle ≤ C2 (NOM-012) and federal stretch ≤ 30 km
3.1 complement?: May not apply
What to do: If the federal stretch exceeds 30 km, issue with complement
Household / commercial moving for a customer
3.1 complement?: Yes, generally (income + 3.1)
What to do: Typical key 78101804; local/C2 exceptions as above
Parcel / courier (invoice to customer)
3.1 complement?: Often income without CP to the customer
What to do: Operator may issue CP on internal legs; do not confuse expense deductibility with consolidator XML
Tow truck / disabled vehicle on federal > 30 km
3.1 complement?: Yes (provider income + 3.1)
What to do: Tow config + SICT permit
Tools / inputs for your own activity (no hired freight)
3.1 complement?: No (per SAT FAQ)
What to do: If you hire transport, the carrier issues income + CP
Penalties and risk
Competitors often cite a single “$17k to $97k” band. The SAT, in its Carta Porte 3.1 FAQs, separates conducts. Use that logic, not one viral number.
Issue income/transfer without complement when required
Cited order of magnitude*: ~$450 to ~$670 per voucher
Where to update: RMF Annex 5 (annual update)
Fail to issue / make CFDI available; recidivism Art. 83 VII
Cited order of magnitude*: ~$19,700 to ~$112,650 (+ possible preventive closure)
Where to update: CFF Arts. 83/84 + Annex 5
Fail to issue or accompany docs that support goods in transit
Cited order of magnitude*: ~$880 to ~$17,030
Where to update: Art. 83 XII / 84 XI + Annex 5
Roadside hold / federal verification
Cited order of magnitude*: Operating risk (delay, cargo stopped)
Where to update: National Guard / SICT / competent federal authorities
Beyond tax risk, the silent cost sits in accounts payable: stamping rejects, carrier collection delays, and payments released without a defensible XML. See errors that reject CFDI 3.1.
How to prepare and issue
The expensive mistake is capturing the trip twice: once in the TMS and again in the PAC portal. The trip should feed the XML.
3.1 issuance
From trip to UUID
Trip data
Origin destination goods
Build XML
3.1 nodes + IdCCP
Stamp PAC
Seal and UUID
Trip file
XML + POD + rate
Detailed guide: how to create Carta Porte 3.1 step by step. If you buy freight, your job starts when the XML arrives, not when the PDF arrives.
Pre-pay checklist (buyer)
Before releasing freight payment, match the complement against the real trip. A valid UUID is not enough.
Elige un paso para ver el detalle
Detalle del paso · 01
Version 3.1
OCL and the trip file
OCL Cargo is an autonomous transportation management system (TMS) with AI agents that operate screens and portals: it is not a catalog stamping SaaS. In the transport flow, OCL can stamp invoices and Carta Porte (3.1 complement) and, on the buyer side, match nodes against rate, GPS, and proof of delivery (POD) before pay.
It coexists with your system of record on day one. Typical pilot: 6–8 weeks on one corridor. Price signal from ~$50 MXN per shipment by scope. Who closes exceptions? Your team. We do not promise a tax opinion or automatic deductibility.
Key takeaways6 points
- Carta Porte 3.1 complement = tax layer of the move on CFDI 4.0; sole version since 17 Jul 2024.
- Carrier that charges, income + complement; owner with own means, and transfer + complement.
- Key 3.1 delta: customs regimes (up to 10), optional tariff fraction, RemolquesCCP for ferry/container; IdCCP and several nodes already existed in 3.0.
- Do not confuse “optional until 2021” with 2026: that is history. Today the risk is omitting or misfiling 3.1.
- Fines: the SAT cites different ranges by conduct; amounts update in RMF Annex 5. Do not memorize one viral number.
- OCL can stamp invoices and Carta Porte and audit the trip file; ~$50 MXN/shipment by scope; 6–8 week pilot; exceptions to your team.
Does the 3.1 complement live outside the trip?
Related reading
- What is Carta Porte
- How to create Carta Porte 3.1 step by step
- 3.1 errors that reject the CFDI
- Mexico freight tax · CFDI and Carta Porte
- What is a PAC CFDI
- What is IdCCP
- Freight pre-pay validation
Official sources (check the current cut): SAT · Carta Porte complement · Carta Porte 3.1 FAQs (PDF).
Frequently asked questions
It is the current version of the Mexican electronic tax voucher (CFDI) complement that documents goods transport in national territory: locations, merchandise, transport mode, permits, and figures. It is issued on CFDI 4.0 and stamped via an Authorized Certification Provider (PAC).
Per the SAT, from 17 July 2024 only CFDI 4.0 with Carta Porte complement 3.1 is valid. In 2026 the schema remains 3.1; what updates often are catalogs (valid keys), not the standard version number.
If you charge for moving third-party goods, issue an income CFDI with the complement. If you move your own goods with your own means and do not charge for that move, issue a transfer CFDI with the complement. Detail: income CFDI in transport and transfer CFDI.
Not as a general rule. The SAT indicates moving services usually require an income CFDI with complement (typical service key 78101804). In parcel/courier, the customer often receives an income CFDI without the complement for the service; intermediate complements may stay with the operator. Local moves or C2-class vehicles with a federal stretch ≤ 30 km can exclude the complement: calibrate with current RMF/SAT rules.
SAT FAQs on Carta Porte 3.1 separate cases: omitting the complement when required may fall around $450 to $670 MXN per voucher (CFF Art. 84, section IV, subsection d), amounts updated in RMF Annex 5. Broader conduct (not issuing CFDI, not accompanying goods-in-transit documentation, recidivism) has other, larger ranges under Arts. 83/84. Confirm current amounts with your tax advisor; this is an operating playbook, not a tax opinion.
No. It proves tax documentation of the move. Physical delivery closes with proof of delivery (POD). Accounts payable should not pay on a pretty PDF alone.
Yes. OCL can stamp invoices and Carta Porte in the transport flow, and also match XML/nodes against trip, rate, GPS, and POD before pay. Exceptions are closed by your team.