After months of high-stakes博弈, the “Sino-US port fee war,” which once threatened to disrupt global shipping chains, has officially been put on hold.
According to Xinhua News Agency, the achievements and consensus reached by the Sino-US economic and trade teams through the Kuala Lumpur consultations mainly include the following aspects:
1. The US side will cancel the so-called 10% “fentanyl tariff” imposed on Chinese goods (including goods from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region). The 24% retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods (including goods from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region) will continue to be suspended for one year. The Chinese side will correspondingly adjust its countermeasures against the aforementioned US tariffs. Both sides agreed to further extend some tariff exclusion measures.
2. The US side will suspend the implementation of its September 29th announced 50% ‘penetration’ rule for export controls for one year. The Chinese side will suspend the implementation of relevant export control and other measures announced on October 9th for one year and will study and refine specific plans.
3. The US side will suspend the implementation of its Section 301 investigation measures targeting China’s maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries for one year. After the US side suspends the implementation of relevant measures, the Chinese side will correspondingly suspend its countermeasures against the US side for one year.
Furthermore, the two sides also reached consensus on issues such as fentanyl-related narcotics control cooperation, expanding agricultural product trade, and case-by-case handling of relevant enterprises. The two sides further confirmed the outcomes of the Madrid economic and trade consultations. The US side made positive commitments in areas such as investment, and the Chinese side will properly resolve TikTok-related issues with the US side.
Against the backdrop of a highly intertwined international shipping industry chain and intensifying global competition in the shipbuilding market, the decision for a Sino-US port fee “truce” is not only a buffer signal for Sino-US economic and trade relations but also a crucial opportunity for short-term stability in the global shipping ecosystem. Its impact on the shipbuilding industry, shipping companies, maritime logistics, and even port operations far exceeds that of the tariffs themselves.
Rewinding to April this year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced that starting October 14, 2025, the US would begin imposing port service fees on maritime services provided by Chinese shipowners and operators, as well as operators using Chinese-built vessels.
In response, on October 10, the Ministry of Transport issued the “Announcement on Collecting Special Port Dues for US Vessels” as a formal countermeasure. These actions by both sides marked the first time that Sino-US friction in the maritime domain had spread from the trade level to the port and shipping service sectors.
According to industry sources, after the relevant measures took effect on October 14, some vessels operating between Chinese and US ports had already begun mutually imposing fees. Several vessels calling at major ports such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, Shanghai, and Ningbo were levied “Port Service Fees” and “Special Port Dues” respectively, raising concerns among shipping companies about future cost increases.
Multiple shipping brokerage firms revealed that some operators on US-China routes began adjusting route plans in the very week the fees were officially implemented. Some shippers even requested temporary port changes or delayed berthing to observe subsequent policy developments.
Now, the suspension of mutual “port fee” impositions and related maritime measures by China and the US directly alleviates the policy uncertainty facing the global shipping industry. The one-year suspension period effectively provides the shipping industry with a “breathing window.” During this time, shipping companies can reassess their cost structures, route networks, and port collaborations to adapt to potential future policy reshaping.
Especially for those shipping enterprises that were originally likely to be subject to port fees, this policy easing undoubtedly brings long-awaited certainty. Previously, some shipping companies had begun formulating contingency plans, evaluating “alternative US port options,” and even considering risk mitigation through changing vessel flags, third-country registration, or chartering arrangements. In the tense atmosphere at the time, these moves were more defensive in nature. Now, these originally defensive layouts are gaining a more adequate window for gestation and implementation.
Previously, due to the uncertainty surrounding the port fee policy, the market priced in additional operational risks for Chinese-built vessels, leading to significant premiums for similar second-hand vessels not built in China. Some foreign shipowners, citing compliance and operational considerations, had postponed plans to place orders at Chinese shipyards or acquire Chinese-built ships.
Following the announcement of the suspension of the new policies, this “policy risk premium” is expected to decline rapidly. For shipowners, the restoration of transaction confidence will directly lead to a rebalancing of second-hand vessel market prices. For the shipbuilding industry, this easing means the psychological barrier for foreign clients is being removed. The industry anticipates that the suspension measures will prompt some previously hesitant shipowners to restart negotiations, especially in areas like LNG and methanol-fueled newbuilds, where the technical and delivery advantages of Chinese shipyards will regain recognition. More importantly, this buffer period helps Chinese shipyards stabilize their export order rhythm.
However, the industry’s optimism is tinged with caution. Some industry insiders believe that this Sino-US policy adjustment is more of a phased buffer rather than a fundamental shift. After all, the basic logic of Sino-US rivalry remains unchanged, and the Section 301 investigation measures are only suspended, not canceled.
Industry analysis points out that if consultations encounter turbulence again after one year, the relevant policies could still be reinstated. This means that shipping companies and shipyards must maintain high sensitivity and risk management awareness in their strategic decision-making. In the short term, the suspension measures provide a buffer window allowing companies to optimize route layouts, stabilize order rhythms, and adjust vessel registration or chartering strategies, but long-term uncertainties persist.
Furthermore, this one-year period is not just a defensive breathing space but also a strategic preparation period: shipping companies need to use this window of policy suspension to enhance their operational resilience, refine contractual arrangements, strengthen supply chain management, and prepare contingency plans for potentially resurgent policy frictions in the future. In other words, the value of this period lies not in eliminating risks, but in providing the shipping and shipbuilding industries with the buffer and leverage to calmly face future uncertainties.
From the perspective of the maritime industry focus, the outcomes of the Sino-US economic and trade consultations signal a return to rationality. This one-year suspension period will be a “strategic buffer year” for the shipping industry—serving as a time window for market restructuring, technological upgrades, and industrial realignment, and potentially becoming a “baseline year” for future negotiations.
The essence of shipping is connection, not confrontation.
Port fees can be suspended, but global trade waits for no one. Whether in the international competition of the shipbuilding industry or the deep integration of maritime networks, China and the US cannot avoid each other’s presence.
In the long run, if this one-year “policy ceasefire” can evolve into “industrial dialogue,” then the global shipping industry might find a new equilibrium amidst competition—a greener, more stable, and more sustainable future.
