The UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade has followed the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to revoke the anti-dumping and countervailing duties on electric bicycles from China. Despite finding that dumping and injury to UK industry would likely recur if duties were removed, the TRA ruled that continuing the measure does not meet the UK’s Economic Interest Test (EIT).

---

Key Findings:

• Dumping Likely to Continue: The TRA determined that Chinese e-bike manufacturers have significant production capacity and could resume exporting e-bikes to the UK at unfairly low prices if duties were lifted.
• Potential Harm to UK Industry: The review found that without trade protections, UK producers—primarily Brompton—could suffer from reduced sales and profitability due to increased price competition from Chinese imports. TRA therefore proposed to maintain the trade defence measures on electric folding bikes only.
• Economic Interest Test Not Met: Despite the risk of injury to UK manufacturers, the TRA found that the overall economic impact of maintaining the duty—such as higher costs for businesses and consumers—outweighed the benefits of protecting domestic producers.

Economic Interest Test (EIT): Why It Was Not Met

The Economic Interest Test (EIT) is a requirement under UK trade remedies law, assessing whether continuing an anti-dumping measure serves the overall economic interest of the UK. It considers the impact on:

1. UK Producers – Would they suffer significant harm if the measure were removed?
2. UK Importers and Retailers – Would they face additional costs or restrictions?
3. Consumers – Would they pay higher prices due to duties?
4. The Wider UK Economy – Would the measure benefit or hinder economic growth?

The TRA concluded that:

• The economic harm to UK businesses and consumers was disproportionate to the benefits of protecting UK producers.
• Retailers and importers strongly opposed the duties, arguing that they raised costs and restricted supply.
• Consumers would benefit from lower prices if duties were removed, boosting the UK e-bike market and supporting sustainable transport goals.
• The UK e-bike industry lacks sufficient domestic production to justify long-term protection, as over 90% of e-bikes are imported.
• While the UK producer Brompton represents a major share of domestic production, its focus on high-end folding e-bikes meant that broader protection for all e-bikes was not justified.

On overall welfare costs, TRA concluded: “Overall, extending the existing measure is very likely to lead to a significant overall welfare loss of between £1.7m to £79.0m per year. The average impact across all scenarios is £31.1m per year. The highest benefits for UK producers occur in the scenarios with the highest costs to importers/retailers and consumers, and there are no scenarios in which extending the measure would have a positive impact.“

TRA also estimated that extending the duties could result in 18,000 fewer e-bikes being purchased per year. This would have a negative impact on switching to walking and cycling for shorter journeys and therefore also on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU doesn’t have an economic impact test in its trade defence legislation. It has the so-called community interest test, which focuses primarily on the interest of the so-called EU industry, whilst having little to no consideration for consumers and EU businesses harmed by the measures. As a result, trade defence measures are maintained if they protect EU producers, as happened with the recent renewal of the measures against e-bikes from China in Europe.

The full impact of this decision on the UK market remains to be seen. However, one key concern may be that the UK has significantly fewer technical regulations to ensure the import of high-quality and safe products. For example, the UK has no counterpart for our Battery Regulation and the problem of fires caused by batteries seems to be more serious there than on the continent. While on the other hand, the EU does have laws to prevent illegal and unsafe imports, enforcement is inadequate. Strengthening enforcement would be a far more effective and efficient solution than relying on perpetual trade defence measures that ultimately harm European businesses.

Another critical takeaway from this case is that EU trade defence measures are designed solely to protect the so-called “Community Industry“, making them inherently protectionist and self-sustaining. If Europe were to revise its community interest test following the UK example, the approach to trade defence would likely be much more balanced. Current EU trade remedies on conventional bikes, e-bikes, and especially bike components are totally not aligned with the broader interests of society, and this case highlights the need for a more holistic evaluation of their impact.

In any case, since 7 February 2025 there are no more trade defence measures against e-bikes imported from China in the UK. An exception has been made for electric folding bikes, a concession mainly to Brompton. The measures for electric folding bikes are maintained. Importers of electric bikes that cannot be folded must enter the additional code 8100 on the import declaration.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the British review of the measures on bicycles and especially on essential bicycle components from China. It already seems very unlikely that these measures would pass the economic interest test.