New port fees could still harm U.S. commodity exports
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has announced a lower fee schedule for Chinese-built ships arriving in U.S. ports than anticipated, but the charges could still impact U.S. rice exports and those of other commodities.
The new schedule issued in a Federal Register notice on April 17 delays the fees for 180 days to Oct. 15, exempts ships which arrive at U.S. ports empty to pick up cargo such as grain and coal and varies the fees by tonnage or type of cargo.
But the revised structure could still mean higher costs for larger Chinese-owned or operated vessels or Chinese-built ships operated by non-U.S.-owned companies than the $1 million to $1.5 million fee proposed by the Office of the USTR’s Section 301 Committee in March.
Referring to a “phased fee on Chinese vessel operators and owners,” the April 17 Federal Register notice said, “The fee will be set at zero dollars for the first 180 days, then will be set at $50 per net ton of cargo on Oct. 14 and will increase by $30 per ton annually over the next three years, beginning on April 17 of each of those years.”
Fee update
This would mean a medium-sized Chinese vessel with a cargo capacity of 15,000 to 50,000 tons could be assessed fees of $750,000 to $2.5 million for a visit to a series of U.S. ports.
USTR said ships will not be charged for each entry to a U.S. port as was implied in the earlier announcement.
Container ships will be charged $18 per net ton beginning Oct. 14 with the fee increasing by five dollars per net ton in each of the next three years or $120 per container beginning Oct. 14 with the amount increasing to $153 on April 17, 2026; $195 on April 17, 2027 and $250 on April 17, 2028.
The fee can be charged up to five times per year per vessel.
Vessels carrying foreign automobiles to the U.S. will be charged $150 per car equivalent unit. The fee apparently will not increase from this level under the current proposal.
The proposal also delays for three years a requirement U.S. vessels be used to transport a “certain percentage” of liquified natural gas (LNG) shipments from U.S. ports and allows other operators to ship LNG if they purchase a U.S.-built LNG vessel in this time period.
USTR began a Section 301 investigation after five unions representing workers involved in the shipbuilding industry filed a petition regarding the “acts, policies and practices of China to dominate the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors” on March 12, 2024.
As a result of its investigation, USTR found China’s targeting of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and is actionable under Sections 301b and 304a of the U.S. Trade Act.
“In particular, USTR determined China’s targeting of the sectors is unreasonable because it displaces foreign firms, deprives market-oriented businesses and their workers of commercial opportunities, lessens competition and created dependencies on China, increasing risk and reducing supply chain resilience.”
World export markets
Commodity organizations whose members rely heavily on exports said – no matter how well-intentioned – the USTR’s proposed port fees fly in the race of the realities of the world export markets.
“USTR cannot turn back time and make vessels built in China disappear,” USA Rice said in its Rice Daily e-newsletter. “They are now an integral part of global shipping, especially for agricultural commodities like rice. Realistic solutions need to take this into account.”
“The problem of subsidy-driven overcapacity should have been addressed sooner, before a critical American industry was brought to its knees. Perhaps the Trump administration should keep this lesson in mind as the American rice industry continues its calls for action on subsidy-driven overcapacity in India,” USA Rice continued.
Trade groups representing importers and exporters said the newly proposed fees will continue to force shippers to charge more and will lead to ships being routed away from U.S. ports.
These proposals are “better, but not necessarily good enough,” the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s Peter Friedmann said, adding that shipping soybeans and almonds via container ships will cost more.
“When ocean carriers raise rates, American families will pay the price through higher costs and growing product shortages,” said Nate Herman with the American Apparel and Footwear Association. “Penalizing, shippers for not using American-flagged or built vessels when they cost five times more and are in limited supply is counterproductive.”
Port redirection
BBC News is reporting the Trump administration’s tariffs are already resulting in more ships being directed to ports in the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) where tariff duties remain unchanged.
The U.S. tariffs have caused “significant build ups” of ships in the EU and “significant congestion” at UK ports, according to Marco Forgione, director general of the Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade.
“We’ve seen a lot of diversion of ships from China, ships that were due to head to the U.S. coming to the UK and into the EU,” he said, noting in the first three months of 2025 Chinese imports to the UK have increased by 15 percent and into the EU by about 12 percent.
For its part, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the fees will raise prices for American consumers and “will not revitalize the U.S. shipbuilding industry.”
Forrest Laws spent 10 years with The Memphis Press-Scimitar before joining Delta Farm Press in 1980. This article was originally published by Delta Farm Press on May 8.
