特朗普2.0全球集运市场观察系列报告（一）：美国301船舶调查拟征费用成本测算

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core View of the Report - After Trump's re - election, his actions such as claiming sovereignty over Greenland and the Panama Canal, mediating the Russia - Ukraine war, imposing wide - range tariffs, and conducting a 301 investigation on China's maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries have brought many uncertainties to the shipping industry. This report focuses on the implementation measures of the US 301 ship investigation and its potential impact on the costs of US - bound routes [3]. - The report analyzes three types of fees proposed by USTR, discusses the optimal fee - payment plans for different operators, calculates the cost increase for operators, and suggests potential countermeasures and their impacts [3][4][9][23]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 First - Class Fees: For Chinese Operators - The main affected operator is COSCO Shipping (including its subsidiary Orient Overseas). Considering the average scale of container ships and net tonnage, it is more beneficial for them to choose to pay a maximum fee of $1 million per entry into US ports [7]. - The charging scenario is that when any ship of a Chinese operator enters a US port, it can choose either to pay a maximum fee of $1 million or to pay based on the ship's net tonnage at a maximum rate of $1,000 per net ton [8]. 3.2 Second - Class Fees: For Operators with Chinese - Built Ships - Charging scenario: If an operator's fleet has Chinese - built ships and its operating routes involve US ports, all of its Chinese - built or non - Chinese - built ships will be subject to fees. It is unclear whether Chinese operators need to pay both "as a Chinese operator" and "for holding Chinese - built ships" fees [10]. - There are three charging schemes. Operators can choose the most favorable one. For example, COSCO Shipping (including Orient Overseas) and CMA CGM find Scheme (a) more favorable; Maersk, Hapag - Lloyd, and Mediterranean Shipping choose Scheme (c) currently as they have less than 25% Chinese - built ships in their current fleets; ONE selects Scheme (a) and may switch to Scheme (c) if the proportion of Chinese - built ships drops below 25%; Evergreen, HMM, and Yang Ming choose Scheme (c) as their proportion of Chinese - built ships is low and unlikely to exceed 25% in the future [10][20][22]. 3.3 Third - Class Fees: For Operators Ordering Ships from Chinese Shipyards - Charging scenario: For operators that have ordered ships from Chinese shipyards, their ships will be charged when docking at US ports [26]. - Different operators have different optimal fee - payment schemes and fee levels based on the proportion of ships ordered from Chinese shipyards and the expected delivery proportion in the next 24 months. For example, COSCO Shipping, Orient Overseas, CMA CGM, Hapag - Lloyd, ONE, and Mediterranean Shipping are in the $1 million fee level; HMM and Yang Ming are exempt from fees; Evergreen may be in the exempt or $750,000 fee level depending on the measurement method; Maersk may be in the $750,000 or $1 million fee level depending on the measurement method [27][28]. 3.4 Fee Reduction Scenario - Operators using US - built ships can apply for a refund on a calendar - year basis. Each entry of a US - built ship into a US port allows the operator to get a maximum refund of $1 million. However, due to the extremely low proportion of US - built ships (less than 1%), only a few operators will benefit [35]. 3.5 Operator Cost Calculation and Potential Countermeasures - Cost calculation: HMM and Yang Ming are not affected by the proposed fees. COSCO Shipping (including Orient Overseas) is the most affected, with a theoretical high - value cost of up to $2.69 million per ship per entry into US ports if paying all relevant fees. CMA CGM and ONE need to pay between $1.2 million and $1.54 million. Evergreen, Maersk, Hapag - Lloyd, and Mediterranean Shipping need to pay between $750,000 and $1 million [40][43]. - Potential countermeasures and impacts: Operators can reduce the number of US port calls, which may lead to congestion at large ports and a decline in traffic at small ports; increase transshipment through Canada or Mexico, but need to consider high inland transportation costs and limited facilities; replace small ships with large ones on US - bound routes, but face limitations such as port efficiency and canal passage; transfer Chinese - built ships out of US - bound routes and move non - Chinese - built ships in [44].