The shipping industry is preparing to face a significant financial challenge imposed by the United States Trade Representative (Ustr) with the measures adopted (and set to enter into force from mid-October) to “reverse Chinese dominance and restore American shipbuilding.”
According to a new analysis just published by the maritime research and intelligence company Alphaliner, the main shipping lines active in container transport could face fees (and thus extra costs) totaling 3.2 billion dollars by 2026 if they maintain the current fleet deployment patterns to US ports.
Based on the measures of Section 301 of the Ustr, scheduled to enter into force from October 14, ships owned or managed by Chinese companies will be charged a cost of 50 dollars per net ton (Net Ton) per voyage to the United States, with an increase of 30 dollars per year until 2027. Furthermore, non-Chinese operators using ships built in China with a capacity exceeding 4,000 TEU or 55,000 Dwt will have to pay tariffs starting from 18 dollars per net ton or 120 dollars per TEU in 2025, with an increase of 5 dollars per year. Both categories of tariffs are limited to five voyages per ship per year and are not cumulative. Operators who order a new ship to be built in the United States could receive a suspension of these tariffs for up to three years.
Zim, One and Cma Cgm are also exposed to a significant impact, with expected fees of 510 million dollars, 363 million dollars and 335 million dollars respectively. Alphaliner notes that these three companies “employ a significant share of ships chartered from Chinese owners” and this places them in the first category of sanctions.
Among the partners of the Gemini Cooperation alliance, the impact varies significantly. While Maersk would face relatively modest fees, equal to 17.5 million dollars, Hapag-Lloyd could be charged about 105 million dollars, mainly due to the use of Chinese-owned ships.
Seaspan, a Hong Kong-based tonnage provider, emerges as a key factor in this scenario with its fleet of 54 ships (for 0.62 million TEU of capacity) chartered for US traffic, potentially generating 1.31 billion dollars in fees across various shipping lines that operate these ships under charter agreements. To remedy this risk, Seaspan would be transferring its headquarters to Singapore, thereby helping its clients avoid the fees on Chinese-owned tonnage.
Not all shipping companies are exposed in the same way.
Alphaliner observes that Evergreen and Hmm will completely avoid the Ustr tariffs because, for example, the second shipping company operates a fleet composed mainly of ships built in Korea (23 units out of 25).
Considering the expected impact for each Teu transported, Alphaliner calculates that the tariffs would range from 2,121 dollars per Teu for the Cosco fleet heading to the United States to only 26 dollars per Teu for Maersk’s US services.
Some of the major shipping carriers, including Maersk, Cma Cgm, Cosco Shipping and Oocl, have already communicated that the measures provided for by US Section 301 will have a minimal impact on their respective networks and freight rates because, in order to keep the current lines as unchanged as possible, the carriers began in time to adjust the distribution of their respective fleets during the 180-day grace period that began on April 17.
An example of these changes came from Msc, which removed the 9,411 Teu Msc Jeongmin vessel from its California Express service from the Mediterranean to the US West Coast. The vessel, owned by Shanghai-based Bank of Communications (Bocom Leasing), made its last call at Los Angeles on August 3.
The Ustr’s actions represent the implementation of a plan announced last April 2025 but scaled back from the original proposals. The final plan softened the tariff levels and offered exemptions and incentives, with the aim of limiting Chinese maritime dominance without severely compromising global trade flows.
With the October 14 implementation date approaching, the shipping industry continues to adapt strategies to mitigate these unprecedented regulatory costs, while maintaining service reliability along global supply chains.
