航运成本
Search documents
美国即将对中国船舶征收港口费 对航运市场影响几何?
Qi Huo Ri Bao· 2025-10-09 00:54
Core Viewpoint - The U.S. is implementing additional port fees for Chinese vessels starting October 14, 2025, which will significantly increase operational costs for Chinese shipowners and shipbuilders [1][3]. Group 1: U.S. Port Fee Implementation - The U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) announced a fee structure for Chinese-owned, operated, and built vessels, with charges starting at $50 per net ton, increasing annually until reaching $140 by 2028 [1]. - The fees must be paid three working days before arrival at the first U.S. port, with non-compliance risking unloading delays or customs clearance suspension [1]. - The fee structure aims to boost U.S. shipbuilding and tax revenue while targeting Chinese maritime operations [3]. Group 2: Chinese Response and Operational Adjustments - In response, China amended its international shipping regulations to impose special fees on vessels from countries that implement discriminatory measures against Chinese shipping [2]. - Major shipping alliances have begun adjusting their operations, with some routes to the U.S. being suspended to reduce costs associated with the new port fees [4]. Group 3: Impact on Shipping Costs and Market Dynamics - The new port fees are expected to increase operational costs for Chinese shipowners significantly, with estimates of an additional $304 per TEU for container ships calling at U.S. ports [3]. - Shipping companies are prioritizing market share over profitability, leading to a rapid cancellation of sailings due to tariff disruptions and weak U.S. demand [5][6]. - The overall impact on the European shipping market is expected to be limited, but the situation will require ongoing observation as shipping lines may adjust their strategies in response to the new fees [7][8].
10万吨单船靠港多付3500万,美对华船舶加征如何应对
Nan Fang Du Shi Bao· 2025-10-08 14:51
日前,美国海关与边境保护局(CBP)正式发布CSMS #66427144号公告,宣布自10月14日起对中国船舶实施新的收费政策。针对中国拥有、运 营或建造的船舶设立三重收费标准,液化天然气(LNG)运输船为唯一豁免品类。 根据公告,收费分为三个附件类别:附件I规定中国实体拥有或运营的船舶按每净吨50美元收费;附件II明确中国建造的船舶按"每净吨18美 元"或"每卸货集装箱120美元"孰高原则计费;附件III对汽车运输船或滚装船按每净吨14美元收取费用。船舶运营方需在抵港前三个工作日通过 美国财政部Pay.gov平台完成缴费,未提供缴费凭证的船舶将被拒绝装卸作业或不予放行。 中国船舶工业行业协会与中国船东协会当日联合发表声明,指出美方措施基于虚假指控,严重违背WTO非歧视原则。中国国务院已于9月29日 修订《国际海运条例》,新增反制条款,明确对采取歧视性措施的国家可实施对等收费、港口限制等反制手段。 航运成本激增 10万吨级货轮单次靠港多付500万美元 据航运咨询机构Alphaliner测算,该政策将给全球前十大班轮公司带来每年32亿美元的额外成本。其中中远海运与OOCL合计承担15.3亿美元, 占比近五成;以 ...
这家班轮公司CEO:若向中国船舶收费,只能退出美国市场!
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-04-06 01:15
Core Viewpoint - The proposed fees by the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) for Chinese-manufactured vessels could lead to the exit of smaller shipping companies from the U.S. market, significantly impacting U.S. exporters and the supply chain [4][6]. Group 1: Proposed Fees and Impact - The USTR's proposed measures include charging up to $1 million per vessel for Chinese shipping companies entering U.S. ports, and up to $1.5 million for non-Chinese companies with Chinese-manufactured vessels [4]. - The measures are expected to disproportionately affect smaller shipping companies like Atlantic Container Line (ACL), which may have to impose additional fees of $2,000 to $2,500 per FEU, compared to $800 per FEU for larger companies [6][7]. - ACL's CEO, Andrew Abbott, indicated that these fees could lead to a "fatal blow" for the company, potentially forcing it to exit the U.S. market and impacting around 300 employees directly, with further indirect effects on the supply chain [6][7]. Group 2: Industry Reactions and Consequences - During a hearing in March, various stakeholders, including U.S. importers, associations, and port operators, expressed opposition to the proposed fees [4]. - Abbott warned that the implementation of these fees could result in a chain reaction, leading to business losses for smaller ports, congestion at larger ports, container shortages, and increased freight rates to levels seen during the pandemic, ultimately harming U.S. exporters' competitiveness [7]. - The economic feasibility of rerouting through Canadian or Mexican ports is questioned due to high inland transportation costs, making it an impractical solution for U.S. exporters [7].