The UK Government has decided against imposing countervailing duties on hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) biodiesel imported from the United States, despite the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) finding that US-origin HVO was subsidised and caused injury to UK domestic producers.
The decision follows the TRA’s final determination published on 10 September. The authority recommended fixed countervailing duties of between £258.10 and £266.68 per tonne, equivalent to approximately €302–€312, but concluded that applying the measures would fail the UK’s economic interest test.
The TRA investigation, launched in March 2025, examined biodiesel produced through the synthesis or hydrotreatment of non-fossil oils and fats. The investigation covered both pure products and blends.
The authority concluded that US-origin HVO biodiesel had benefited from subsidies and that this subsidisation had caused injury to domestic UK producers. On that basis, the TRA recommended countervailing duties designed to offset the level of subsidisation identified in its investigation.
However, UK trade-remedy rules require the TRA to consider more than whether imports have received subsidies or harmed domestic industry. The authority must also assess whether imposing a trade-remedy measure would be in the wider economic interest of the UK.
In this case, the TRA determined that the costs associated with the proposed duties would be disproportionate for downstream businesses, importers and consumers.
Government declines to impose duties
Following the TRA’s findings and consideration of wider public-interest factors, the Secretary of State decided not to apply the recommended anti-subsidy measures.
Consequently, US HVO biodiesel imports will not face the proposed countervailing duties.
The decision means the finding of subsidisation and injury does not translate into an additional import duty for US-origin HVO under this investigation.
The outcome illustrates the distinction between establishing that subsidised imports have caused injury and determining whether trade-remedy action should ultimately be imposed.
HVO falls within UK biodiesel trade-remedy scope
The investigation applies to biodiesel manufactured through synthesis or hydrotreatment of non-fossil oils and fats, including both neat and blended products.
Renewable diesel, also commonly known as green diesel, falls within the scope of the investigation. Synthetic paraffinic kerosene used as sustainable aviation fuel is excluded.
The distinction is significant because HVO and renewable diesel are increasingly used as alternatives to conventional fossil diesel, while SAF operates within a separate fuel and regulatory framework.
The UK already has established production of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel, but the source material states that the country has no dedicated HVO manufacturing capacity.
That domestic production structure provides important context to the trade-remedy case. While the TRA identified injury to UK producers, the absence of dedicated domestic HVO manufacturing capacity means the wider economic consequences of restricting imported HVO were also relevant to the final decision.
Economic interest test shapes trade-remedy decision
The UK’s economic interest test is a mandatory component of most trade-remedy investigations. It considers whether applying proposed measures would benefit the wider UK economy after taking account of their effects across different parts of the supply chain.
For HVO, that assessment extends beyond domestic producers to businesses importing and using the fuel, as well as consumers potentially exposed to higher costs.
The TRA’s conclusion that the proposed duties would create disproportionate costs ultimately influenced the decision not to impose them.
Bioenergy Business Analysis
The UK decision highlights the tension between protecting domestic producers and maintaining access to renewable fuel imports. In this case, the TRA found evidence supporting countervailing action, but the broader economic assessment meant that the proposed duties were not considered justified.
For the HVO market, the decision preserves access to US-origin renewable diesel imports without the additional duties proposed by the TRA. It also demonstrates that trade-remedy investigations can produce different outcomes from a straightforward finding of subsidisation and injury.
The case is particularly relevant to renewable-fuel suppliers and downstream fuel users because the UK’s economic interest test places supply-chain and consumer impacts alongside domestic-industry concerns. Future trade-remedy cases involving renewable fuels may similarly have to balance industrial protection against the costs of restricting access to imported products.
The final decision therefore does not establish that US HVO was unsubsidised; rather, it confirms that the UK Government chose not to impose countervailing duties after considering the wider economic interest.
Read also: UK ends successor support for small-scale biomass
