The decision brings to a close an investigation launched by the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) in March 2025 following concerns from the UK biodiesel industry over the impact of US hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) imports.
In its final determination, the TRA concluded that HVO imported from the US had been subsidised and that those imports had caused injury to UK industry. It recommended fixed countervailing duties of between £258.10 and £266.68 per tonne, depending on the exporter.
However, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Jonathan Reynolds rejected the recommendation after the TRA’s separate Economic Interest Test concluded that imposing the duties would not be in the wider UK economic interest.
The result is that no additional anti-subsidy duty will apply to US HVO imports and HMRC ceased registering affected imports from 11 September.
An investigation that changed direction
The final outcome represents a further turn in an investigation that has evolved as evidence and US support arrangements changed.
The TRA’s November 2025 interim findings had already concluded that UK producers of FAME biodiesel were suffering injury as a result of subsidised US HVO imports.
As previously reported by Fuel Oil News, the Authority subsequently indicated in March that it intended to make a negative final determination. At that point, it concluded that the US Blenders Tax Credit (BTC), which had supported HVO production during the investigation period, had effectively ended, no longer providing subsidisation to US exporters.
Further evidence was then submitted during the consultation process. The Road Transport Fuel Association (RTFA) challenged the view that US support had effectively ended, pointing in particular to the replacement Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit and proposed US legislation that could reinstate the BTC.
The TRA ultimately reached an affirmative final determination, finding that the evidential requirements for action against subsidised imports had been met.
Why were duties rejected?
TRA findings do not automatically result in the recommended action.
Where the TRA recommends a trade remedy, it must also conduct an Economic Interest Test considering the effect on UK producers alongside the consequences for importers, downstream businesses, consumers, competition and the wider economy. The test is normally presumed to be met where subsidisation and injury have been established unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In this case, the TRA concluded that it was not.
In a statement to Parliament, Reynolds said the measure could deliver benefits to UK biodiesel producers and upstream businesses but that these would be “significantly outweighed” by the costs to downstream businesses, importers and consumers.
He said the scale by which the Economic Interest Test had not been met led him to conclude that imposing the duties would not be in the wider public interest.
RTFA questions long-term impact
The RTFA has expressed concern about the decision, arguing that the assessment gives insufficient weight to the longer-term value of retaining UK renewable fuel manufacturing capacity, investment, employment and supply-chain resilience.
It has called for Government and the TRA to consider whether the Economic Interest Test adequately reflects those risks, maintaining that UK producers are seeking fair competition rather than protection from imports.
The association argues that allowing subsidised imports to continue without a remedy could increase pressure on domestic production and skilled employment and leave the UK more reliant on overseas renewable fuel supply.
Image credit: Dreamstime
