250+ Trade Groups Ask USTR to Kill China-Linked Ship Fees for Good

More than 250 trade groups and shipper associations — including the National Retail Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers and the World Shipping Council — have asked U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to permanently suspend Section 301 fees on China-built and China-linked vessels, according to an Oct. 30 letter to the agency.

The ask matters to importers' landed costs. The paused fees range from $18 per ton to $120 per container, and the current suspension is set to lift Nov. 9. Last month, USTR proposed extending the pause until Jan. 9, 2027, and opened a public comment window that closed Oct. 30 — the same day the coalition's letter landed.

What would the fees cost shippers?

The fee structure, designed to push vessel owners toward U. shipyards, offers an up-to-three-year exemption for owners who order a new U.S.-built vessel. That incentive hasn't moved the needle on capacity, the signatories argue.

In the letter, the stakeholders warn that fees scheduled for January 2027 would "add another cost layer to an already strained transportation system. Because China-built vessels represent a meaningful share of global ocean carrier capacity, the practical effect of the Section 301 vessel fees would not be limited to a narrow set of market participants."

That's the core channel-economics point: importers don't control which vessels carry their containers. Shippers have limited say over the operations or construction of the ships their carriers deploy, so a fee levied at the vessel level lands on cargo owners who can't route around it.

In short: the fee functions as a de facto tax on freight users, not on shipbuilders.

Why is the timing especially painful?

Transpacific ocean freight rates have stayed elevated through 2025. The Iran war and tariffs have pushed shippers to abandon traditional shipping patterns, and higher diesel prices have added another layer of transportation cost.

Layering $120-per-container port fees onto those rates would hit retailers and manufacturers at a moment when inbound logistics budgets are already stretched. The letter notes the fees would also deepen planning uncertainty for shippers who can't influence carrier fleet decisions.

Takeaway: shippers would absorb the fees at the worst point of the freight-cost cycle.

Does the pause prove fees don't work?

The coalition makes that case directly. The year-long suspension, the groups argue, has shown that fees alone are not a viable strategy for reviving U.S. shipbuilding.

The structural problems the letter cites:

• Limited domestic shipbuilding capacity
• Workforce constraints
• A lack of competitive alternatives to Chinese yards

Those factors, per the letter, are what sustain China's dominance in commercial shipbuilding — a dominance that penalty fees on carriers do nothing to reverse.

A continued pause or permanent suspension, the signatories wrote, "would also provide USTR additional time to continue negotiations with China, coordinate with allies and partners, and pursue policies that expand U.S. shipbuilding and maritime capabilities without imposing near-term costs on American freight users."

That framing separates the goal from the tool: the coalition isn't opposing U.S. maritime revival, only the fee mechanism funding it.

What happens Nov. 9?

The immediate question is procedural. USTR has already proposed extending the suspension to Jan. 9, 2027; the comment record closed Oct. 30. If the extension is finalized, importers get roughly 14 months of fee certainty. If it isn't, the $18-per-ton and $120-per-container charges resume the day after the current pause expires.

The letter's 250-plus signatories — spanning retail (National Retail Federation), manufacturing (National Association of Manufacturers), ocean carriers (World Shipping Council) and agriculture (U.S. Dairy Export Council) — represent both sides of the shipping transaction, which strengthens the political case for relief.

Watch for USTR's decision before Nov. 9, and for whether the agency pairs any extension with new shipbuilding-side incentives rather than carrier-side penalties.