Caterpillar has opened a legal challenge to the United Kingdom’s 18.81% anti-dumping duty on excavators made by its Chinese subsidiary, bringing the calculation of a post-Brexit trade remedy before a London court.
The duty applies to Caterpillar excavators weighing at least 11 tonnes but less than 80 tonnes and forms part of a wider measure on imports from China. Other exporters face rates ranging up to 40.08%. The Trade Remedies Authority concluded that the goods had been dumped and that the imports caused material injury to British industry; the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation.
Caterpillar disputes the method used to reach its individual rate. Its case is being heard this week by Mr Justice Richards and focuses on whether the authority constructed a lawful and reliable comparison price. The company says the rate is high enough to have stopped the relevant exports from China to Britain.
The current dispute follows earlier proceedings in which Caterpillar challenged steps taken during the investigation. The Administrative Court dismissed that judicial-review claim in May 2025, holding among other things that the company had breached its duty of candour. The present hearing concerns the final anti-dumping outcome and its calculation, rather than simply repeating that procedural challenge.
No judgment has yet been delivered. The 18.81% duty therefore remains the operative measure unless the court grants relief or the government changes it through the statutory trade-remedies process. A separate absorption review and later suspensions for particular new exporters do not remove Caterpillar’s listed rate from the definitive notice.
The case matters beyond one product line because it tests how closely courts will examine the economic modelling behind duties imposed by the United Kingdom’s domestic trade-remedy system. The immediate question, however, is narrower: whether the authority lawfully arrived at Caterpillar’s rate on the evidence and methodology it used.
The government’s definitive trade-remedies notice sets out the duty and the affected product range. The earlier court judgment records the procedural history.
