On 10 September 2026, the Trade Remedies Authority published its final determination on imports of hydrotreated vegetable oil biodiesel from the United States. The authority concluded that the product had been subsidised and that those imports had caused injury to the UK industry. The TRA recommended a definitive anti-subsidy duty of between £258.10 and £266.68 per tonne. That recommendation did not translate into a border measure, however, because the Secretary of State later decided not to apply the duty.
This is the key point in the case. Under the UK trade remedies system, a finding of subsidy and injury does not automatically mean duties follow. Where the TRA recommends a final measure, it must also assess whether applying a countervailing amount would be in the UK's economic interests. In this investigation, the authority found that imposing the recommended amount would not meet that test. The Secretary of State then considered the TRA's recommendation alongside wider public interest matters and rejected the proposed measure, meaning no anti-subsidy duties will be charged on US HVO imports.
The investigation was opened on 17 March 2025. It covered biodiesel, also described in the notice as paraffinic diesel fuel or gasoil, obtained from the synthesis or hydrotreatment of oils and fats of non-fossil origin, whether imported in pure form or as part of a blend, where the goods originated in the United States. In commercial terms, this fuel is commonly sold as HVO, renewable diesel or green diesel. The case did not cover synthetic paraffinic kerosene, more commonly referred to as sustainable aviation fuel, which was expressly excluded from the product scope.
The TRA examined a subsidy investigation period running from 1 January to 31 December 2024. It assessed injury over a longer period, from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2024, allowing it to test whether any harm to UK producers was sustained rather than short-lived. The government also notes an important feature of the domestic market: the UK has an established FAME biodiesel production industry, but no dedicated HVO production. That market position helps explain why the case sits across adjoining low-carbon fuel segments rather than a simple contest between domestic and imported HVO output.
For importers, fuel suppliers and blenders, the immediate effect is continuity. No countervailing duty will be added to HVO biodiesel arriving from the United States, so the decision avoids a new cost and compliance step at the border. For UK producers, the outcome is more mixed. The TRA's determination that subsidised imports caused injury remains on the record, but the domestic industry will not receive trade remedy protection in the form of definitive duties. That distinction is central to the case: the legal threshold on subsidy and injury was met, yet the wider economic case for intervention was not.
The economic interest test is often the least visible part of a trade remedies case, but here it decided the outcome. The test forms part of the TRA's process in almost all investigations and reviews where measures are being considered, and it is designed to weigh the likely benefit of intervention against the effects on the UK economy more widely. For policy readers, the decision is a clear example of how the UK's trade remedies regime works in practice. The TRA determines the facts and recommends action, but ministers retain the final decision after considering the statutory tests and the public interest. In the HVO case, that structure produced an unusual but important result: subsidy was found, injury was found, duties were recommended, and no duties were imposed.