Monday, June 8, 2026Panama City

Nexo Capital

Legislation · Markets · Investment
Inversión y Comercio

Framework nearshoring bill advances to second debate

The bill offers tax incentives to companies relocating manufacturing and logistics to Panama, complementing existing regimes such as SEM, EMMA, and Free Zones.

Alexandra Brenes — active_speaker
Diputada Alexandra Brenes
By Mesa de Análisis Económico · Análisis · June 3, 2026

Bill 387, which promotes the Framework Law on Productive and Logistics Relocation (nearshoring), is in its second debate before the Commerce and Economic Affairs Commission. The initiative, introduced by Representative Ernesto Cedeño, seeks to attract manufacturing, assembly, and international logistics activities to Panama.

Representative Ernesto Cedeño during the second debate of Bill 387
Representative Ernesto Cedeño, chair of the Commerce and Economic Affairs Commission and sponsor of Bill 387, during the second debate.

Article 5 provides tax incentives for companies that join the regime, including an exemption from the Transfer Tax on Movable Goods and Services (ITBMS) for manufacturing, assembly, international logistics, and value-added services operations directed at foreign markets.

The bill is designed to complement existing investment-attraction frameworks: Law 41 of 2007 (Multinational Enterprise Headquarters, SEM), Law 159 of 2020 (Multinational Manufacturing Enterprises, EMMA), Law 32 of 2011 (Free Zones), and Law 412 of 2023 (Colón Free Zone). It also introduces green incentives for companies that adopt clean technologies or circular-economy practices.

Representative Jamis Acosta during the commission session
Representative Jamis Acosta, member of the Commerce and Economic Affairs Commission, during the debate.

If enacted, the proposal would add another instrument to Panama's offering for capturing supply-chain relocation to the region. Its final content may be adjusted during the legislative process.

Sources
  • Proyecto de Ley 387 — Comisión de Comercio y Asuntos Económicos (segundo debate)

← Back to front page