男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Chinese Perspectives

Abusive port fees blackmail global shipping sector

By Qi Bin | China Daily | Updated: 2025-04-30 07:08
Share
Share - WeChat
Vessels under construction at a shipyard in Rongcheng, East China's Shandong province. LI XINJUN/FOR CHINA DAILY

What is the USTR's proposal?

On April 17, 2025, the Office of the US Trade Representative released the final notice of action regarding its investigation into what it called "China's unfair practices in the shipbuilding and maritime logistics sectors". With regard to the draft Federal Register Notice and the accompanying press release, the United States is set to levy fees on vessels arriving at US ports which are owned, operated or built by China.

This measure will be rolled out in two phases. The first is scheduled to begin on Oct 14. During this stage, the US will start charging fees which are calculated based on the net tonnage of arriving vessels. For ships with Chinese operators or owners, the fee will commence at $50 per net ton and gradually increase to $140 per net ton over a three-year period.

For Chinese-built ships, the fee will begin at $18 per net ton and increase to $33 per net ton within the same three-year span. The second phase will be initiated three years later. At that point, the US will place restrictions on the transportation of liquefied natural gas by foreign vessels, with these curbs intensifying incrementally until 2047.

The USTR Notice defined "Chinese ownership" in terms of legal title, beneficial ownership and effective control. Nevertheless, when it came to defining a vessel's "operator", the USTR simply referred to a US Customs and Border Protection form, which fails to offer a clear-cut definition of the term.

All these fees are imposed under the authority of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This section empowers the USTR to counter any foreign country's action which is considered "unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce". Evidently, such practices blatantly violate a fundamental tenet of the World Trade Organization system, the principle of non-discrimination under the Trade-Related Investment Measures.

This principle serves as the cornerstone of an orderly international trade environment. Imposing higher fees on vessels which are either owned, operated or built by China arriving at US ports is a discriminatory trade practice targeting China and other countries. It severely breaches WTO rules and significantly undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system and the international economic and trade order.

Moreover, the USTR's actions may also violate the 2003 Sino-US Maritime Agreement, as well as other US laws. For instance, the USTR's use of its Section 301 authority may be in violation of the export clause in the US Constitution. As a result, it is highly likely that affected stakeholders will challenge the legality and validity of these practices on administrative, constitutional and procedural grounds.

Although the US port fees are aimed at countering China's dominance in the shipbuilding industry, the general view is that they will not lead to a renaissance in US shipbuilding. US shipyards generally face limited capacity and a lack of price competitiveness. A container ship built in China costs approximately $55 million, while a comparable US-made ship comes with a price tag of around $330 million.

China holds the position of the world's largest shipbuilder. According to Clarksons Research's 2024 annual review of the shipbuilding industry, around 66 percent of all new ship orders placed in 2024 were awarded to Chinese shipyards, while the US accounted for a mere 0.1 percent. In terms of shipbuilding output, China commands a 53-percent market share, meaning that 53 percent of all ships delivered globally in 2024 were manufactured in China. Charging hefty port fees for vessels that have already been built and delivered by China and are owned or operated by Chinese or non-Chinese entities is meaningless in terms of revitalizing the US shipbuilding industry.

From a practical perspective, the measure may disrupt global shipping and ultimately harm US customers and businesses more than it impacts China. Decoupling with and penalizing Chinese shipping will only disrupt the US logistics system and its supply chains.

On the one hand, large shipping lines have significant fleets of Chinese-built vessels, and Chinese-owned operators transport vast quantities of goods to the US. On the other hand, data from Lloyd's List Intelligence shows that only 9 percent of Chinese-built ships called at US ports in the first quarter of 2024, which is a relatively small proportion. These shipping lines can redeploy their vessels to non-US services, reducing the number of Chinese-built ships visiting US ports. Eventually, US businesses and consumers will bear the brunt, facing higher prices as increased shipping costs drive up inflation, thus affecting importers, exporters and American households alike.

In conclusion, the USTR seems to have grossly miscalculated the importance of China in the global shipbuilding industry and its trade relations with the US. Targeting Chinese-built ships operated by global shipping lines that serve the US not only violates WTO rules and US laws, but is also detrimental to the interests of the United States and its people.

The author is a partner at Jin Mao Partners, a leading Chinese law firm. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 广元市| 方城县| 凤台县| 大港区| 轮台县| 万盛区| 安福县| 鄱阳县| 酒泉市| 柘荣县| 牟定县| 同江市| 彰化市| 通江县| 容城县| 栾川县| 和顺县| 山西省| 通江县| 永仁县| 康马县| 屏东县| 湘乡市| 富顺县| 屯留县| 太康县| 灌南县| 云南省| 桃园市| 察哈| 郑州市| 沙洋县| 修武县| 涿鹿县| 泾源县| 义马市| 高青县| 东光县| 陈巴尔虎旗| 乌审旗| 云浮市| 泸西县| 临猗县| 缙云县| 彭阳县| 寿阳县| 东城区| 武冈市| 浦江县| 建湖县| 灵台县| 习水县| 施甸县| 茂名市| 云梦县| 洪泽县| 尼玛县| 商丘市| 买车| 定襄县| 徐闻县| 南岸区| 平顺县| 庄浪县| 陇川县| 吉林市| 普格县| 紫金县| 阜阳市| 尤溪县| 龙岩市| 庐江县| 麻阳| 平阴县| 墨脱县| 石柱| 陵川县| 阿拉善左旗| 静海县| 巴里| 彰化县| 昔阳县|