Economic interest test
How the TRA applies the economic interest test (EIT).
Businesses wanting to understand trade remedies should read trade remedies: investigating dumped or subsidised goods for information on the investigations process and the actions you need to take.
This guidance uses shortened names when referring to legislation:
- ‘dumping and subsidisation regulations’ refers to the Trade Remedies (Dumping and Subsidisation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
- ‘safeguards regulations’ refers to the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
- ‘TCBT Act’ refers to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018
This legislation has been amended, including by:
- schedule 19 of the Finance (No.2) Act 2023
- the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
- Trade Remedies (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Paragraph 25(4) of Schedule 4 and paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 5 to the TCBT Act set out the economic factors that must be considered by the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), where relevant, to determine whether applying measures is in the economic interest of the UK.
In dumping and subsidisation investigations, the economic interest test (EIT) is presumed to be met unless, following the assessment of evidence in the investigation, the TRA is satisfied that the application of the measures is not in the economic interest of the UK. In safeguard investigations, there is no presumption that the EIT is met.
The EIT does not have to be met for the TRA to recommend anti-dumping, countervailing or safeguard measures. If the TRA considers that its preferred measure does not meet the EIT, but the minimum WTO requirements for imposing a definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measure have been met, it must still make a recommendation to the Secretary of State which includes an explanation of why its preferred measure does not meet the EIT.
The TRA should seek evidence to support its conclusions on the EIT, which may include submissions by interested parties and contributors on whether a proposed measure is in the economic interests of the UK.
The circumstances of each specific investigation are likely to require different approaches to assessing the EIT.
In a new investigation, where the TRA has made an affirmative determination (either provisional or final), it must conduct the EIT.
As well as being used in new dumping, subsidy and safeguard investigations, the EIT is also conducted as part of certain reviews, where the TRA determines that a measure should be varied by extending the duration. The TRA may conduct the EIT in other reviews at its own discretion. The Secretary of State will consult the TRA on whether an EIT must be conducted as part of an investigation in light of an international dispute decision or an early review.
The economic factors the TRA must consider when conducting the EIT are:
- injury caused to a UK industry by the dumping of the goods or the importing of subsidised goods and the benefits to that UK industry in removing that injury (for dumping and subsidisation investigations only)
- injury caused to UK industry by importing goods in increased quantities and the benefits to those producers in removing that injury (for safeguards investigations only)
- economic significance of affected industries and consumers in the UK
- likely impact on affected industries and consumers in the UK
- likely impact on particular geographic areas, or particular groups, in the UK
- likely consequences for the competitive environment and for the structure of markets for goods in the UK
- other matters that the TRA considers relevant
Where the TRA conducts the EIT, it will include its findings in the Provisional Affirmative Determination, Statement of Essential Facts, and Final Determination, as relevant to the investigation or review. The EIT process is the same in investigations and reviews; however, in reviews (excluding transition reviews), the TRA can consider the EIT it conducted during the original investigation and assess data and evidence on the economic impact of the measures since they have been applied.
The TRA may offer alternative options on the proposed measure within its recommendation to the Secretary of State. The TRA must advise the Secretary of State in its recommendation whether and why it considers that each option would meet the EIT. For further information on alternative options, please see the relevant guidance for dumping and subsidy investigations and reviews or safeguard investigations and reviews.
When the TRA provides the Secretary of State with its provisional or final recommendation, it must advise the Secretary of State whether and why it considers that applying an anti-dumping or countervailing amount to the relevant goods, in accordance with its recommendation, would meet the EIT. The recommendation, and potential subsequent imposition, of an anti-dumping, countervailing or safeguard measure to the Secretary of State is not conditional on the EIT being met.
Where the conditions to put a measure in place exist but no forms of measure would meet the EIT, the TRA’s preferred option in the recommendation should be that no measure be implemented. The TRA must consider providing at least one alternative option, which should ordinarily be a 4-year ad valorem duty (in the case of a safeguard measure) or a 5-year ad valorem duty (in the case of an anti-dumping or countervailing measure). The TRA can also include an additional alternative option if it considers that any such additional option may be more appropriate than a 4 or 5-year ad valorem duty (as applicable).
Before the Secretary of State asks the TRA to conduct a reassessment or early review, the Secretary of State will consult the TRA to determine whether the TRA should conduct an EIT as part of that reassessment or early review. For further information on reassessments and early reviews, please see the relevant guidance for dumping and subsidy investigations and reviews and safeguard investigations and reviews.
Submissions from interested parties and contributors, including oral hearings regarding the EIT
The TRA should consider all arguments and evidence put forward by interested parties and contributors regarding the EIT, provided parties have shared their submissions and non-confidential versions of these in the format specified by the TRA, have submitted them by the deadline set by the TRA and the evidence is verifiable.