-
The revised USTR Section 301 port fee policy targets Chinese maritime interests while minimizing impact on U.S. oil flows.
-
Less than 3% of voyages are expected to be affected, mainly involving Chinese-owned or Chinese-built tankers.
-
Key exemptions include U.S.-owned vessels, tankers under 55,000 dwt, and short-sea shipments within 2,000 nautical miles.
-
Chinese tanker owners and shipbuilders are the primary commercial losers, while uncertainties remain regarding ownership classifications.
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has rolled out a softened version of its Section 301 port fee policy. The updated plan focuses squarely on China’s maritime sector but appears engineered to avoid disruption of U.S. oil exports and broader global energy flows. By applying narrowly defined charges and offering broad exemptions, the USTR has crafted a measure with targeted reach and limited operational interference, according to Breakwave Advisors.
Scope and Implications for Oil Shipping
The fee structure is narrowly focused. Oil shipments are largely untouched unless carried by Chinese-owned or -built vessels. Vessels under 55,000 dwt—or perhaps 80,000 dwt depending on how the rule is interpreted—are exempt unless owned by Chinese entities. U.S.-owned tankers and those in U.S. government programs are also excluded. Specialized tankers and short-sea shipments under 2,000 nautical miles evade the charges altogether. Only a sliver of tanker traffic, particularly long-haul crude carried on Chinese tonnage, is caught in the net.
From a data perspective, only around 3% of voyages last year would have been subject to fees. Half of these involved Chinese-owned ships; the other half were Chinese-built ships lacking exemptions. Avoiding this small subset of voyages post-October 14th should pose little difficulty for the industry.
Expected Market Shifts and Industry Reactions
The most direct consequences fall on Chinese tanker owners and shipyards. With global-trading MR tankers often needing U.S. port access, Chinese leasing firms may look to divest such assets. Simultaneously, owners could pause or delay orders for Chinese-built tankers unless price incentives become irresistible. Chinese yards have previously offered steep discounts, such as during the COVID-19 era when Suezmax construction slots dropped as low as $51 million. While prices have declined somewhat this year, Korean yards remain more expensive, quoting in the high $80 million range for new Suezmax builds.
China’s Response and the Regulatory Gray Areas
Although China has opposed the plan, it has refrained from retaliating thus far. Potential responses could include new restrictions on U.S.-owned ships calling at Chinese ports or a wait-and-see approach, banking on future U.S. policy shifts.
Key questions still linger. For instance, how exactly is “Chinese ownership” defined? Confirmed inclusions are Hong Kong and Macao-based owners, and likely ships leased from Chinese financial houses. Yet, sale and leaseback arrangements are often obscured in maritime databases. It’s also unclear how the new rules will treat vessels under time charter to non-Chinese operators or pooled in international fleets.
Fee Details and Timeline
Beginning October 14th, the USTR fees will be assessed at a vessel’s first U.S. port call from a foreign origin, capped at five charges annually per ship. Chinese-owned or operated vessels will face an escalating fee starting at $50 per net ton and rising to $140 over three years. Vessels built in China but not owned or operated by Chinese entities will see a fee starting at $18 per net ton, climbing to $33 over the same period.
Operators may be eligible for fee remissions if they commission and take delivery of U.S.-built vessels of equal or greater capacity within three years. Exemptions cover empty ships, those under 55,000 dwt, voyages under 2,000 nautical miles, and certain specialized tankers such as chemical carriers.
The latest USTR port fee policy marks a strategic, if limited, step in the ongoing trade and geopolitical tension between the U.S. and China. While immediate market disruptions seem minimal, the longer-term implications could ripple through the Chinese shipbuilding and shipping sectors. As regulatory interpretations evolve and enforcement mechanisms become clearer, the full impact of these fees will come into sharper focus.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free Click here to Subscribe!
Source: Breakwave Advisors
