China pitched as biggest threat to US shipbuilding while Japan and South Korea were identified as a potential source of expertise to revitalise US shipbuilding. Initial hearings at the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) investigating the shipping market manipulation by China have been largely lukewarm by industry operators and their customers.

Monday’s hearings at the USTR saw American shipper representative groups largely opposing the $1.5m/port call charge on Chinese ships, which they say will fuel cost increases and ultimately inflation as shipping costs are passed down the line to consumers. World Shipping Council representations also highlighted the inflationary tendency: “The World Shipping Council (WSC), which represents 90% of the world’s container ship capacity, submitted a prepared testimony arguing the fees would exacerbate inefficiencies in the supply chain and negatively affect US business,” reported Alphaliner.

Meanwhile, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives argued that increased transportation costs would severely impact US industry competitiveness in the global marketplace. Feeder operators, US terminal operators and China trade representatives were predictably opposed to the proposed charges. However, just as predictably, some industry associations backed the policy, including the US steel industry-backed Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), which was joined in its support by South Korea’s Hanwha Shipping, and its US subsidiary.

Alphaliner reported that AAM agrees with the Trump administration that China has manipulated the market: “The largest obstacles to shipbuilding in the US are the unfair trade practices of China. While no nation should be faulted for seeking to develop maritime capabilities, Beijing’s ambitions go well beyond that and merit a strong response by USTR using its authorities.”

According to former FMC commissioner Carl Bentzel, now the president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE), European, Japanese and South Korean shipbuilding companies would be seen as acceptable alternatives to bring their expertise to the US and revitalise US shipbuilding.

“They would need to produce the vessels in the US, but these shipbuilders know that ultimately that would benefit their companies,” Bentzel told Seatrade Maritime News.

Meanwhile, Alphaliner argues that the fees, if they are imposed, will distort the liner shipping trades with larger operators more capable of limiting their exposure. There is a large variation between the carriers, with both Evergreen and HMM having made no port calls with Chinese-constructed vessels, while such vessels account for 38 of Maersk's 214 calls, ZIM 37 of 73, CMA CGM 36 of 139, MSC 34 of 218 and COSCO Group 25 of 72.

For Zim, the policy could be particularly damaging with 48% of its fleet deployed on the US trades. “Most of the Chinese-built ships in ZIM’s fleet are units in the 5,315 – 7,800 teu size range, which were taken only recently on long-term charter from owners such as Seaspan or Navios,” said Alphaliner.Overall, Alphaliner said 190 of 1,002 port calls were made by Chinese-built ships in February (19%), by 488 different vessels. The consultant added that the majority of container ships serving the US were built in South Korea, at 54.5%, while Chinese vessels were 20.9% of the total and Japan 12.3%.

The USTR hearings will continue in Washington today. (26 Mar ’25)