The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) hosted a webinar to hear from industry stakeholders who shared reflections and insights from the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Section 301 Committee hearing on China’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding practices.

These proposals involve imposing significant service fees on Chinese-built and Chinese-flagged vessels calling at U.S. ports, as well as export quotas designed to promote the carriage of U.S. goods on U.S.-built and U.S.-registered ships. The webinar followed the public hearing which took place in Washington, D.C., where a wide range of industry stakeholders, including ICS representatives, provided testimonies.

Guy Platten, ICS Secretary General, opened the session by acknowledging the importance of revitalising the American shipbuilding industry, a central goal of the proposals. However, he also raised concerns about the uncertainty and potential unintended consequences that the proposals had already triggered across the global shipping industry and various other industry sectors.

Rachel Noronha, ICS’s Head of Shipping Policy, provided a comprehensive summary of the USTR Section 301 hearing, which took place over two days on 24 and 26 March due to the high number of requests to testify. The hearing featured 70 witness testimonies, alongside written submissions from over 500 stakeholders which were submitted on the public docket ahead of the hearing. Most testimonies opposed the proposed measures in some capacity, highlighting significant risks to U.S. exporters, especially in the agricultural and energy sectors. While there was general support from representatives for the objective of boosting domestic shipbuilding, many testimonies argued that the current proposals would be counterproductive due to the risk of raising costs, reducing export competitiveness, and disrupting trade routes.

Testimonies came from a broad range of sectors, including shipping, port authorities, agriculture, energy, mining, manufacturing, and retail. The only groups to voice full support were a panel of labour unions, a steel industry representative, and several members of Congress. A recurring concern raised during the hearing was the risk of cargo diversion to Canadian and Mexican ports, which could harm smaller and medium sized U.S. ports while overburdening larger ones and risking severe congestion. Alternative proposals were also put forward, such as excluding existing Chinese-built vessels from the proposed fees or calculating fees based on cargo value.

Panellists Kathy Metcalf (Chamber of Shipping of America), Bruce Burrows (Chamber of Marine Commerce, Canada), and Nick Tabori (World Shipping Council) reflected on the hearing, noting that many U.S. agencies appeared unaware of the full extent of the potential economic fallout the proposed remedies could cause. They observed a shift in tone from U.S. officials following the hearing, suggesting a possible softening of the proposals or potential delays to implementation.

Kathy Metcalf, shared valuable reflections on the reactions of the current U.S. administration, possible next steps, and how best to relate the commercial realities of the shipping industry to the White House.

Bruce Burrows spoke about the potential impacts the proposals could have on short sea shipping and Great Lakes/St Lawrence Seaway, highlighting the intricacies of the supply chains in the region.

Nick Tabori discussed the potential impacts on the container sector, and areas of the proposed remedies which remain unclear, including a lack of definition of terms such as ‘operator’ and ‘Chinese-built’.

The discussion also addressed the executive order on shipbuilding signed shortly before the webinar, which does not include specific provisions on port fees for Chinese-built or flagged ships, which were contained in the draft version. This omission was viewed as a sign that the administration might be reconsidering its approach in light of the extent of opposition received. Finally, the timeline for next steps was outlined: a decision from the USTR is anticipated by 17 April, with an implementation hearing or consultation process likely to follow around mid-May. The final implementation could take up to 180 days thereafter.

Overall, the webinar underscored both the strong opposition to the proposed measures and the importance of continued industry engagement with the regulatory process as it continues to unfold.

See the full webinar below.