Chinese Built Ships Calling on US Ports: Uncertainty is Still Prevalent as Deadline Nears

Summary

The US Office of the Trade Representative (USTR) published an action plan in April targeting alleged Chinese maritime dominance; the measures are due to take effect on 14 October after a 180-day phase‑in. Fees will be imposed on port calls to the US depending on whether a vessel is Chinese built or Chinese owned/operated. Chinese‑owned or -operated vessels face an initial tariff of $50 per net tonne (NT) per US port call or rotation (set to rise over three years). Chinese‑built but not owned/operated vessels face a more complex regime with exemptions; the base fee indicated is $18/NT, also set to increase over time.

The policy leaves many open questions: definitions of “owner” and “operator”, the 80,000 dwt exemption clarity, how exemptions (ballast voyages, <2000nm, <55,000 dwt, US beneficial ownership) are applied, and whether costs can be avoided by re‑berthing or ship‑to‑ship (STS) discharge. Gibson Shipbrokers notes notable market responses already — shippers and lessors are rearranging financing, chartering and vessel availability to reduce exposure to Chinese lease financing being treated as Chinese ownership.

Key Points

USTR measures aimed at Chinese maritime dominance start 14 October after a 180‑day phase in.
Chinese owned/operated vessels face an initial tariff of $50/NT per US port call/rotation; this would make many such vessels uncompetitive in the US market.
Chinese built (but not owned/operated) vessels may face $18/NT unless exemptions apply (ballast, <2000nm voyages, <55,000 dwt, US beneficial ownership); the 80,000 dwt rule remains unclear.
Definitions matter: if applied broadly, ~19% of tankers >25,000 dwt could be classed Chinese owned/operated; over 500 tankers >55,000 dwt are Chinese built but not Chinese owned/operated.
Nearly 70% of current tanker orderbook >25,000 dwt is being built in China, implying future exposure.
Nearly 90% of clean product imports to the US travel on vessels <55,000 dwt and are therefore mostly exempt; larger crude/DPP imports from >2000nm (eg Brazil, Argentina) could be affected.
Market reactions already include diversification away from Chinese lessors, early repayments, charter discounts and fixtures arranged to avoid US trade; liability for fees is contested between charterers and owners.
Despite the share of Chinese‑linked tonnage, Gibson suggests there are sufficient non‑Chinese ships to meet US demand, though freight volatility is likely as supply chains adjust.

Context and Relevance

This policy intersects trade, shipping finance and geopolitics. For shipowners, charterers and financiers it affects route economics, charter party clauses and leasing structures. Ports, cargo owners and charterers may face higher costs or operational constraints when relying on Chinese‑built or Chinese‑linked tonnage. The measure could shift trading patterns (replacing affected tonnage with exempt vessels), influence newbuilding decisions and speed legal/financial re‑structuring to avoid classification as Chinese owned or operated.

The timing matters: with a close deadline and many unresolved technicalities (definitions, exemptions, operational workarounds), market participants must assess exposure now — especially those involved in crude/DPP trades where larger ships and long voyages are common. The development also feeds ongoing industry trends: de‑risking Chinese financing, on‑going re‑flagging and a push for alternative tonnage sources.

Why should I read this?

Short version: this rule could reshuffle who can call US ports and who ends up paying. If you run tankers, fix charters, finance ships or manage US imports of crude/clean products, this matters — and fast. Read it to spot where costs, availability and contract language might need changing before the deadline.