Newly announced port fees by the US Trade Representative (USTR) are less substantial than the proposal from February, but a shipping analyst expects vessel supply to decrease and rates to climb on certain routes.

Theodor Gerrard-Anderson, chemical freight analyst at Lighthouse Chartering, said that most bulk liquid shipowners will not be affected by the USTR’s final plan for port fees on China-linked vessels, but major Chinese operators will see impacts from Annex I.

And despite exemptions in Annex II, Gerrard-Anderson anticipates tighter vessel supply and higher rates for vessels transiting the US Gulf.

Annexes I and II from the USTR’s final plan are the applicable sections for the bulk liquid transportation market.

The effects from Annex I, which focuses on service fees on Chinese vessel operators and vessel owners of China, will be impacted as many of these owners have established a meaningful presence in the US market and maintain large contract of affreightment (COA) portfolios for trading specialty chems and bulk liquid cargoes, Gerrard-Anderson said.

Annex II, which essentially impacts the rest of the bulk liquid transportation market, includes exemptions for tankers less than 80,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT) even if they are built in China, and for ships on short sea trades of less than 2,000 nautical miles.

Special purpose-built vessels for the transport of chemical substances in bulk liquid forms will not be charged.

Another exemption, designed to help maintain US exports, is that ships arriving ballast will not be charged to ensure tonnage is available for export.

Analysts at shipping broker NETCO said that most vessels in their segment are exempt under Annex II.

On the container shipping side, the softening of the fee structure reduces the risk of severe port congestion and could ease overall upward pressure on freight rates, according to an analyst at ocean and freight rate analytics firm Xeneta.

Emily Stausbøll, Xeneta senior shipping analyst, said it is significant that the final proposal has fees levied on a net tonnage basis per US voyage, rather than cumulative fees for every port the ship calls at.

“We must look carefully at the potential impact of the revised port fees, but changes will be welcomed by the ocean container shipping industry given the significant criticism levelled at the initial proposal during the public hearing,” Stausbøll said.

“The fact fees will not be imposed on every port call is particularly important because it lowers the risk of congestion had carriers decided to cut the number of calls on each service into the US,” Stausbøll said. “This port congestion had the potential to cause severe disruption and upward pressure on freight rates.”

Stausbøll said costs could still be very high for Chinese carriers and carriers operating Chinese-built vessels – particularly for ships with the largest capacity.

“The latest announcement should still be viewed in the context of the original proposal, which offered dire consequences,” Stausbøll said. “The situation has changed for the better, but it isn’t a great victory for the ocean container shipping industry because these fees still add further pressure at a time when businesses are already trying to navigate the spiraling tariffs announced by the Trump Administration.”

Container ships and costs for shipping containers are relevant to the chemical industry because while most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, container ships transport polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are shipped in pellets. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is also shipped in containers.

They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks.
Source: ICIS by Adam Yanelli, https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2025/04/18/11093936/shipping-us-gulf-tanker-supply-could-decrease-rates-could-rise-on-new-ustr-port-fees/