Chinese car making giant BYD says the UK has become its biggest market outside China, after its sales there surged by 880% in September compared to a year earlier.

The company says it sold 11,271 cars in the UK last month, with the plug-in hybrid version of its Seal U sports utility vehicle (SUV) accounting for the majority of those sales.

It comes after figures from the car industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) showed that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) jumped to a record high in September.

The UK is particularly attractive to firms like BYD as the country has not imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, unlike other major markets such as the European Union and the US.

BYD, which offers cheaper models than many of its Western rivals, said its share of the UK market jumped to 3.6% in September.

The company will launch more new hybrid and electric cars in the months ahead, said the BYD’s UK manager Bono Ge. He added that the brand’s future in Britain looks “hugely exciting”, having just opened its 100th retail outlet.

UK EV sales hit a record high last month, with sales of pure battery electric vehicles rising to almost 73,000, according to the SMMT.

Sales of plug-in hybrid cars grew even faster, it said.

The Kia Sportage, Ford Puma and Nissan Qashqai were the best-selling cars in September. Chinese models – the Jaecoo 7 and BYD Seal U – were also in the top 10.

But despite the surge in overall EV sales in the UK, petrol and diesel vehicles still made up more than half of new car sales last month, according to the SMMT.

In October last year, the EU announced it would hit imports of Chinese EVs with levies of up to 45%.

The measure is aimed to protect European car makers from being undermined by what the EU believes are unfair Chinese-state subsidies.

Chinese car makers like BYD have been effectively shut out of the US by high tariffs, which were backed by both President Donald Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden.

Sir Keir Starmer’s cabinet is deeply divided over economic policy, with senior ministers fearful further measures to target the rich in next month’s Budget could accelerate the wealth exodus from Britain.

Cabinet ministers have told the The Independent they believe Rachel Reeves has already gone too far with measures targeting the wealthy and businesses, and have urged the chancellor to change course if she is to have any hope of achieving growth.

They cited “anti-aspiration” measures such as the abolition of non-dom status and VAT on private school fees as key drivers of wealth away from the UK, saying they are “harming this country”. Further measures reportedly being considered include a property tax on high-value homes and a new bank profits tax.

Ministers have instead urged the prime minister and Ms Reeves to consider “efficiency savings” and cuts to fill a Budget black hole estimated to be between £30bn and £40bn.

Those on the left in Labour have noted that the recent reshuffle has “handed more power to the right of the party” while left-wingers who support wealth taxes have been demoted or pushed out.

But a powerful group within cabinet on the right of the party believes the government is failing to rein in spending and needs to be more ready “to reform the state in a Labour way.”

One minister said: “The trouble is we have crossed a line in trying to encourage aspiration. The non-dom change and the VAT on school fees have sent the opposite message.”

Noting the record number of millionaires leaving London in particular, the minister added: “It’s doing a lot of harm to the country.”

Another cabinet minister said: “I just think the non-dom changes made no real sense. Why do we want people with money to move it out of the country? It is really bad for London.”

Ms Reeves is currently refusing to budge on the manifesto promise not to raise VAT, income tax or employee national insurance contributions, but is facing mounting pressure is mounting there too.

However, one of her firmest allies in sticking to this pledge is new welfare secretary Pat McFadden, who has warned colleagues that “election wins are hard to come by and that manifesto promise was key to achieving it”.

He is in charge of trying to revive welfare reform after the government’s plans to slash disability payments were derailed by a massive rebellion by Labour MPs before the summer.

However, there is another faction within the cabinet that is backing growing calls from unions and Labour members for wealth taxes to plug the hole in the nation’s finances, such as a property tax that would hit those who have high-value homes.

There are others who are supporting the TUC’s campaign for a new bank profits tax and to hit the super-rich with a wealth tax.

One minister said: “It only seems fair that the rich carry the burden.”

However, question marks have been raised over whether so-called wealth taxes can fill the Budget black hole or would do more damage.

Professor Stephen Millard, deputy director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), has warned that Ms Reeves will eventually have to break her manifesto promise not to raise any of the big taxes – VAT, income tax or employee national insurance contributions.

The NIESR estimates that the black hole will be above £40bn, and Prof Millard warned: “It is likely that, absent any change in policy, the chancellor will have a large gap to fill to meet her fiscal rules; a reduction in spending would be hard to achieve given we’ve just had a comprehensive spending review.

“It is likely that any change to the rules enabling the chancellor to increase borrowing would result in an adverse market reaction; so the chancellor will need to raise taxes.

“Given our estimate of the extent of the gap, we do not think that the Chancellor will be able to fill it by ‘tinkering’ with lots of changes to the non big four taxes; so we think she will have to raise either income tax, NICs or VAT.”

Isaac Delestre, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), warned: “If the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast deteriorates and the chancellor wants to stick to her fiscal rules she will either need to deliver spending reductions or tax increases.”

Donald Trump administration’s tariff collections – running into billions of dollars – is threatened in case the Supreme Court decides to strike down the US President’s tariff policies. Trump himself has warned that any decision against his tariff policies would spell disaster.Businesses, which have paid huge amounts in the last few months due to country-based tariffs, believe that getting back refunds in case the tariffs are deemed illegal by the Supreme Court, would be a nightmare.

Tariff refund nightmare

To begin with, this would create administrative challenges involving extensive refund processing. If these nation-specific tariffs are ruled unlawful, the United States might need to return most of the $165 billion in customs duties collected in the current fiscal year to the businesses that paid them, according to a Bloomberg report.However, obtaining refunds will be complicated; reimbursements typically come via paper cheques through a slow process, and whilst the government could expedite mass repayments, experts believe this is doubtful.“The customs authorities won’t simply distribute refunds to importers freely,” Lynlee Brown, global trade partner at EY was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.The uncertainty surrounding the potential refund process exemplifies the broader confusion that businesses and financial markets have experienced since the implementation of Trump’s tariff policies.Several importers have abandoned expectations of receiving reimbursements, even if the court rules in their favour.“I have zero faith we’d ever get anything. Just zero,” expressed Harley Sitner, who owns Peace Vans, a Seattle-based classic camper van repair and restoration business.

More than half of tariff revenue at risk of refund

Sitner told Bloomberg that the unpredictability of Trump’s trade policies is more problematic than the actual tariff payments, which he views as irretrievable expenses. Following unexpected tariff charges ranging from $221 to $17,000, sometimes arriving months after receiving goods, Sitner has discontinued importing international inventory.“Just yesterday we got a small shipment from Germany worth $2,324 and it came with a $1,164 tariff charge. We can’t back out,” Sitner stated.Various customs brokers report being approached by Wall Street organisations interested in purchasing rights to potential refunds, offering importers an opportunity to recover a portion of their possible entitlements.The significant increase in customs duties – a rise of $95 billion compared to the previous year – is primarily attributed to Trump’s import tariffs affecting multiple economies, which became effective in August, as analysed by Bloomberg Economics. Two lower judicial bodies have ruled that Trump lacked the authority to implement tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Should the Supreme Court uphold these earlier decisions, approximately 50% of the customs duties collected by the United States this year could be subject to refund. However, the process for businesses to reclaim these funds remains uncertain. Despite the government shutdown, tariff-related operations have largely continued uninterrupted.The United States Customs and Border Protection regularly processes refunds for importers in cases of overpayment or regulatory changes, with the Treasury Department issuing the payments. However, this reimbursement process is not automatically initiated.In line with statutory requirements, importers and their customs brokers must adhere to precise timelines and documentation procedures to maintain eligibility for refunds. Currently, the system predominantly relies on paper cheques for disbursement.Despite the Treasury’s directive from the Trump administration to discontinue cheque payments by September 30, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) only initiated its first phase last Tuesday in what will be an extended implementation process. The system’s completion before any court decision appears unlikely without accelerated efforts.Tom Gould, a customs consultant from Seattle, suggests that potential refunds might result in “it’s possible that we’ll see millions and millions of paper checks being mailed out because each shipment, each customs entry, will have its own.”The process could be problematic. According to the Bloomberg report, due to regulatory requirements, customs refunds are exclusively sent to sanctioned domestic banks in dollars, requiring foreign importers to receive their refunds through international postal services or utilise a broker’s account within the United States.Worryingly, there has been a series of stolen cheque incidents in recent years. According to Gould, refund cheques were intercepted during postal delivery and traded on the dark web before being encashed.The administration possesses various options to expedite refunds, including automated processing of claims using existing system data. CBP has previously implemented refund rationalisation measures.Customs officials developed a framework to facilitate refund disbursement for items eligible under duty exemptions through the Generalised System of Preferences. Despite Congress allowing this programme to expire multiple times since the 1980s, it was subsequently renewed retroactively.Importers would input specific codes indicating GSP eligibility, even during programme inactivity. Gould suggested that the agency could similarly analyse internal data to identify IEEPA code-related tariff payments.Alternative procedures exist, though they might be complex. Legal experts indicate individual importers could be compelled to initiate separate legal proceedings to recover their funds.The authorities might require submission of protests or post-summary amendments, accompanied by comprehensive payment documentation and importer records, despite the government already possessing this information.EY’s Brown recommends importers maintain complete records from CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment platform, documenting entry dates and deadlines systematically to enhance refund possibilities.Despite potential simplified procedures by CBP, the complex nature of financial transactions within supply chains presents additional challenges.For shipments managed through commercial carriers like FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc., who handle documentation and tariff payments, CBP would direct refunds to the registered importer – the courier service rather than the goods’ owner.This arrangement could generate complications between the actual importers and courier services, creating another obstacle for businesses seeking reimbursement.

Tariff collections: Trump admin may not let go easily

Trump has valued the tariff income, declaring it has restored national wealth. He and his supporters have suggested various uses for these funds, including reducing national debt, supporting struggling agricultural sectors, and potentially distributing payment cheques to US citizens.This suggests the Trump administration will be reluctant to release these funds if the tariffs are invalidated, and they are likely to swiftly implement new levies using alternative legal frameworks should this occur. The Supreme Court is scheduled to review arguments in November regarding this matter.