The FIA has rejected Ferrari's call for a review of the penalty handed to Sebastian Vettel in Mexico.

In the wake of the 10s penalty that saw the German demoted from third to fifth, the Maranello outfit yesterday revealed that it had submitted a request to the Stewards of the event to review their decision.

The Italian team argued that the penalty, incurred following his clash with Daniel Ricciardo in Turn 4 on the penultimate lap of the race was the first time Article 27.5 of the 2016 F1 Sporting Regulations had been applied, the rule intended to prevent so-called Verstappen moves.

The team had argued that a number of new elements had come to light after the decision was rendered that made the decision reviewable under Article 14.1 of the International Sporting Code and that even though, if successful, the championship rankings would not change, it was important to set a precedent for the future.

Consequently, the Mexico race stewards were reconvened via teleconference this afternoon along with Jock Clear representing Ferrari and Christian Horner and Jonathan Wheatley representing Red Bull.

While Ferrari provided GPS data which it claimed justified a new investigation into the incident the stewards argued that it was nothing new.

"Scuderia Ferrari argued in its written submission that the "new element", in accordance with Article 14.1, existed," said the FIA in a subsequent statement. "In its verbal submissions it also argued that there were two "new elements".

"Specifically the Scuderia argued that the Race Director, pursuant to Article 27.4 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, had the "power" to instruct the driver of Car 33 Max Verstappen, to give back the alleged advantage he had gained when leaving the track on a previous lap to that of the incident involving Car 5 (Vettel) and Car 3 driven by Daniel Ricciardo.

"Scuderia Ferrari also argued that the GPS data it presented was a "new element". The Stewards heard extensive verbal submission and argument for all parties.

"In relation to the matter of the Race Director having the "power" to instruct the driver of Car 33 to give back the alleged advantage, we note firstly that the relevant article gives the Race Director "absolute authority" to allow the driver to give back a position. It does not imply an obligation to do so. The fact that the Race Director did not exercise his discretion is not relevant to the decision taken in Document 38.

"In relation to the GPS data, we note that this data is available to teams during the race. It is also available to, and referred to by, the stewards, in the Stewards Room during the race.

"When asked if the GPS data in any way contradicted the telemetry and other evidence that the Stewards concluded showed that the driver of Car 5 had steered whilst under braking at Turn 4, Mr Clear conceded that it did not.

"Article 14.2 of the International Sporting Code gives the Stewards the sole discretion to determine if a new element exists. Having received all the written and verbal submissions and carefully considered them, the Stewards decide there is no new element."

As is its right under the International Sporting Code, Ferrari expressed its intent to appeal, however, it is widely felt that the Italian team will instead opt to let the case drop.