US-China Port Fees 2026: 209 Trade Groups Seek Extension Before November 10 Deadline

Trade & RegulationUpdated · 25 September 2026U.S.–China Shipping

US-China port fees are back on shipping’s regulatory calendar. A coalition of 209 U.S. federal and state trade associations has asked the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to extend the suspension of Section 301 vessel fees linked to Chinese-owned, Chinese-operated and Chinese-built ships before the current pause expires after 9 November 2026.

The fees are not being collected today. USTR suspended the maritime actions from 12:01 a.m. EST on 10 November 2025 through 11:59 p.m. EST on 9 November 2026. Unless the agency extends or modifies the suspension, the published Section 301 action is positioned to become relevant again from 10 November 2026.

Quick answer

What is the November issue? The one-year U.S. suspension of the Section 301 maritime fee regime ends after November 9. The World Shipping Council says 209 trade associations asked USTR on September 23 to extend the pause. Under the published schedule, a non-Chinese operator using a Chinese-built vessel can face the higher of $23 per net ton or $153 per container discharged at the 2026 tier if the action resumes without modification. Chinese vessel owners and operators sit under a separate schedule of $80 per net ton at the 2026 tier.

209trade associations supporting the September extension request

9 Novlast day of the current suspension under USTR’s notice

$153published 2026 per-container tier for covered Chinese-built vessels

$80/NTpublished 2026 tier for covered Chinese owners and operatorsInside this analysisLatest developmentNovember deadlineFee scheduleWho is coveredExemptionsWhy industry objectsWhy USTR created the actionCommercial impactContainer shippingVehicle carriersContracts & surchargesWhat to watchFAQ

209 Trade Groups Ask USTR to Extend the Section 301 Vessel-Fee Suspension

On 23 September 2026, the World Shipping Council said that 209 U.S. federal and state trade associations had signed a joint letter requesting an extended suspension of the Section 301 China-built vessel fees.

According to WSC, the letter was sent to the U.S. Trade Representative and shared with the Departments of Commerce, Treasury and Transportation, as well as staff on the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee.

The coalition includes maritime transportation stakeholders and groups representing importers, exporters, retailers, manufacturers, agriculture, logistics and other users of the international freight system.

The immediate issue is not the creation of a new fee. It is whether a previously adopted but currently suspended regime remains paused after early November.

The Exact Deadline: Suspension Runs Through November 9

USTR’s formal suspension notice is precise.

The responsive action is suspended from 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on 10 November 2025 through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 9 November 2026.

During that period, USTR says parties do not accrue liability for, and are not required to pay, the maritime transport fees under Annexes I, II or III of the Section 301 action.

Through 9 November 2026 → fees suspended → 10 November 2026 → published action can become relevant again unless USTR extends or modifies the suspension

USTR’s Section 301 case page, as available on 25 September 2026, still lists the one-year suspension as the latest formal modification to this maritime action. A further 2026 extension notice is not listed there at the time of this update.

Important: the November rates below are the rates contained in the published USTR schedule. They are not fees being collected on September 25. USTR can still extend, modify or otherwise change the action before the suspension ends.

US-China Port Fees 2026: What the Published Schedule Says

The Section 301 maritime action does not contain one universal “China ship fee”. It separates the exposure into different annexes depending on ownership, operation, place of build and vessel type.

Category	Published 2026 tier	How it works
Chinese vessel owner or operator	$80 per net ton	Annex I schedule for covered vessels owned by a Chinese entity or operated by a Chinese vessel operator.
Chinese-built vessel operated by a non-Chinese operator	Higher of $23/NT or $153 per container discharged	Annex II calculation, subject to targeted-coverage exemptions and special rules.
Foreign-built vehicle carrier	Separate Annex III regime	USTR modified this category in October 2025, changing the calculation to a net-tonnage basis.

For Chinese-built vessels under Annex II, the published schedule says the operator must use the higher of the net-tonnage calculation and the per-container calculation. The same annex says the fee can be charged up to five times per year, per vessel.

This distinction matters because a large containership with a high number of discharged boxes may have a very different exposure from a tanker, bulker or other ship with the same place of build.

Chinese-Owned, Chinese-Operated and Chinese-Built Are Not the Same Test

One of the most important commercial details is that the regime does not apply only to Chinese shipping companies.

Annex I is aimed at covered vessels with a Chinese owner or operator.

Annex II can reach a non-Chinese shipping company when the vessel itself was built in the People’s Republic of China.

USTR defines a Chinese-built vessel by reference to its place of build as identified under U.S. Customs and Coast Guard rules.

Commercial implication: fleet nationality and shipyard origin are separate variables. A carrier headquartered outside China can still have Section 301 exposure when deploying Chinese-built tonnage to the United States.

Which Chinese-Built Vessels Are Exempt Under Annex II?

The published action contains significant targeted-coverage exclusions. Under Annex II, the fee does not apply to U.S. government cargo and excludes several categories of Chinese-built vessels.

Those include:

• certain U.S.-owned or U.S.-flag vessels enrolled in specified Maritime Administration programmes;
• vessels arriving empty or in ballast;
• vessels at or below specified size thresholds, including 4,000 TEU or 55,000 dwt, with a separate 80,000 dwt bulk threshold;
• certain short-sea voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles from a foreign port or point;
• qualifying U.S.-owned vessels;
• certain specialised chemical carriers;
• vessels principally identified as Lakers vessels.

The details matter because two ships built at the same Chinese yard can have different fee outcomes depending on vessel size, trade, ownership and voyage profile.

Why 209 Trade Associations Want the Suspension Extended

The coalition’s request reflects a broad commercial concern: vessel fees can affect more than the shipping company receiving the regulatory charge.

The World Shipping Council argues that fees applied to existing vessels can raise costs and uncertainty for U.S. exporters, farmers, manufacturers and consumers without necessarily producing new U.S.-built ships quickly.

WSC has also argued that a net-tonnage formula can place larger vessels under heavier nominal exposure and that the regime may affect routing and long-term fleet planning.

Those are industry positions, not findings by USTR. The policy debate turns on whether vessel charges create an effective incentive for U.S. shipbuilding without producing disproportionate costs elsewhere in the trade system.

Why USTR Created the Vessel-Fee Regime

USTR’s stated rationale is different.

Following its Section 301 investigation, the agency determined that China’s policies and practices targeting maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors were unreasonable and burdened or restricted U.S. commerce.

USTR said the responsive action was designed to discourage reliance on Chinese shipping and Chinese-built ships, create leverage in negotiations with China and send a demand signal for U.S.-built vessels.

The agency also phased the original action, included exemptions and assessed the principal vessel fees by voyage or string of U.S. port calls rather than stacking a new charge at every individual U.S. port call.

Two different policy arguments

USTR: the measures are intended to respond to China’s shipbuilding and maritime industrial policies and encourage demand for U.S.-built shipping capacity.

Industry coalition: extending the suspension would avoid higher transport costs and disruption while U.S.–China negotiations and domestic shipbuilding-policy work continue.

Why the November Decision Matters Commercially

A vessel fee can change voyage economics even when the underlying cargo demand has not changed.

For an owner or operator, the questions become:

• Is the vessel covered by Annex I, Annex II or another part of the action?
• Was the ship built in China?
• Does an exemption apply?
• How many U.S. rotations has the vessel already made during the year?
• What is its net tonnage?
• How many containers will be discharged in the United States?
• Can another vessel in the fleet perform the rotation more economically?
• Does the charterparty or customer contract permit recovery of new government-imposed costs?

This is why the fee regime can influence vessel deployment, not just accounting.

A carrier with several technically interchangeable ships could prefer a non-Chinese-built vessel for a U.S. rotation while using Chinese-built tonnage elsewhere. Whether that is commercially practical depends on fleet composition, schedules, capacity and the cost of disrupting an established network.

What the Section 301 Fees Could Mean for Container Shipping

The container sector is particularly sensitive to Annex II because the published calculation compares a net-tonnage fee with a per-container discharged fee and applies the higher result.

That creates several possible commercial responses if collection resumes:

• greater scrutiny of which vessels are assigned to U.S. services;
• review of port rotations and network design;
• new or revised carrier surcharges where contracts permit them;
• more attention to the build country of chartered-in tonnage;
• different economics for high-volume U.S. discharge calls;
• potential knock-on effects for Transpacific contract negotiations.

None of those outcomes is automatic. Actual freight-market impact would depend on how USTR implements the regime, which vessels qualify for exemptions, the ability of carriers to substitute ships, competitive conditions and whether costs are absorbed or passed through.

The key distinction for cargo owners: Section 301 vessel fees are not the same as a tariff assessed on the origin of the goods inside the container. The maritime action targets the shipping service and vessel characteristics.

What Could Happen to Freight Rates?

A direct one-for-one increase in ocean freight should not be assumed.

Carriers price services through a combination of base freight, bunker adjustments, peak-season mechanisms, security charges, port costs and other contractual surcharges. A government-imposed vessel cost can therefore be handled differently depending on the carrier and contract.

The more useful commercial questions are:

• whether the fee changes the marginal cost of a U.S. rotation;
• whether carriers can avoid the fee by changing vessel deployment;
• whether the market is strong enough to pass the cost to cargo owners;
• whether long-term contracts contain government-charge or change-in-law provisions;
• whether competing carriers have materially different exposure.

For current freight benchmarks and route-level context, see Tide Signal’s Container Shipping Rates hub and Transpacific Container Rates 2026.

Vehicle Carriers Face a Separate Section 301 Exposure

The maritime action is broader than container shipping.

USTR originally imposed a separate charge on foreign-built vehicle carriers and then modified the methodology in October 2025, setting the fee at $46 per net ton for the covered category at that time.

That matters because the vehicle-carrier fleet is highly international and a large share of global capacity was built outside the United States.

The car-carrier issue should therefore be analysed separately from Annex II’s China-built-vessel formula.

For the underlying automotive shipping market, see Tide Signal’s China Car Export Boom and the Vehicle Carrier Market.

Charterparties and Freight Contracts: Who Ultimately Bears the Cost?

The regulatory fee and the final commercial burden are not necessarily the same thing.

If the Section 301 action resumes, companies may need to review:

• government dues and taxes clauses;
• port-charge allocations;
• change-in-law clauses;
• voyage expense responsibility;
• liner surcharge provisions;
• notice requirements;
• vessel-substitution rights;
• charterer approval requirements for nominated tonnage.

A carrier may be legally responsible for a government charge but still have contractual rights to recover some or all of that cost from another party. The answer depends on the specific contract and should not be assumed from the USTR notice alone.

Why Shipyard Origin Is Becoming a Voyage-Economics Variable

Traditionally, the build country of a commercial vessel mattered primarily for purchase price, financing, technical specification, resale value and owner strategy.

The Section 301 maritime action adds another potential variable: regulatory cost at destination.

That creates a connection between decisions made years earlier — when an owner selected a shipyard — and the economics of a future U.S. voyage.

For fleet planners, that raises a wider question: can ships remain fully interchangeable across global trading patterns when individual jurisdictions attach different costs to ownership, flag, build origin or cargo?

Why the Fee Is Assessed Per Rotation Rather Than Every U.S. Port Call

USTR received concerns that a fee at every port entrance could disproportionately affect smaller U.S. ports and encourage carriers to consolidate calls.

The final structure instead assesses the principal Annex I and Annex II fees at the first U.S. entry on a particular rotation or string of U.S. port calls, subject to the rules of the relevant annex.

The published action also caps assessment at up to five times per year per vessel.

This does not eliminate the cost, but it materially changes the economics compared with a fee charged independently at every U.S. port call.

What the November Decision Does Not Automatically Decide

Several issues should remain separate.

• Vessel fees are not ordinary Section 301 product tariffs. They arise from a separate maritime, logistics and shipbuilding investigation.
• Chinese-built does not automatically mean Chinese-owned. Different annexes apply different tests.
• Not every Chinese-built vessel is covered. Annex II contains several exclusions.
• Published rates are not the same as current charges. The fees remain suspended through November 9.
• Resumption is not certain. USTR can extend or modify the action before the deadline.
• Freight-rate impact cannot be calculated from the fee schedule alone. Fleet substitution, competition, contracts and cargo volumes all matter.

What Shipping Should Watch Before November 10

Development	Why it matters
New USTR Federal Register notice	Would determine whether the suspension is extended, modified or allowed to end.
U.S.–China maritime negotiations	The 2025 suspension was linked to a broader U.S.–China economic agreement and continued negotiations.
Carrier surcharge notices	Would show whether operators expect to pass any renewed regulatory cost into freight pricing.
Vessel redeployment	Could reveal whether carriers are moving Chinese-built ships away from U.S. rotations.
CBP implementation guidance	Operational details matter for calculation, reporting, payment and exemptions.
Reciprocal Chinese measures	Changes on the Chinese side could alter the bilateral shipping-cost picture.
Exemption treatment	The effective exposure depends heavily on size, trade, ownership and vessel type.

Tide Signal takeaway: the November question is not simply whether a fee “returns”. The commercial effect depends on which annex applies, which ships are exempt, whether USTR changes the schedule and how carriers respond through deployment and contracts.

Related Tide Signal IntelligenceContainer Shipping Rates — Current Route Benchmarks and Market DriversTranspacific Container Rates 2026China Car Export Boom and the Vehicle Carrier Market

US-China Port Fees 2026 FAQ

Are the U.S. Section 301 vessel fees currently being charged?

No. USTR suspended the maritime fees from November 10, 2025 through 11:59 p.m. EST on November 9, 2026.

When could the Section 301 vessel fees return?

Under the current suspension notice, November 9 is the final suspended day. The action can become applicable again from November 10, 2026 unless USTR extends or modifies it.

What is the 2026 fee for a Chinese-built ship?

Under the published Annex II schedule, a covered Chinese-built vessel operated by a non-Chinese operator is assessed using the higher of $23 per net ton or $153 per container discharged. The action is currently suspended.

What is the fee for a Chinese-owned or Chinese-operated vessel?

The published Annex I schedule sets the 2026 tier at $80 per net ton for covered vessels. That fee is also currently suspended.

Does the fee apply at every U.S. port call?

The principal Annex I and Annex II fees are structured around a rotation or string of U.S. port calls rather than stacking a separate fee at every port call, and the published action caps the charge at up to five assessments per vessel per year.

Are all Chinese-built ships subject to the fee?

No. Annex II contains targeted exclusions including certain smaller vessels, empty or ballast arrivals, specified short-sea trades, qualifying U.S.-owned vessels, certain specialised chemical carriers and other categories.

Why are 209 trade groups asking for an extension?

The coalition argues that continuing the suspension would avoid additional shipping costs and disruption while negotiations and U.S. shipbuilding policy work continue.

Why did USTR create the fees?

USTR says the action responds to Chinese policies and practices in maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, creates leverage in negotiations and is intended to encourage demand for U.S.-built vessels.

Are Section 301 vessel fees the same as tariffs on Chinese goods?

No. This maritime action is based on a separate Section 301 investigation and targets maritime transport services and vessel characteristics rather than simply the country of origin of the cargo.

Primary Sources and Verification

• World Shipping Council — Joint association letter, 23 September 2026
• USTR — Section 301 maritime, logistics and shipbuilding investigation hub
• USTR — One-year suspension of the maritime action
• USTR — April 2025 Section 301 Action Notice and Annexes
• USTR — October 2025 modifications to the shipping action
• World Shipping Council — USTR Shipping Fees

Updated 25 September 2026. The Section 301 maritime action is currently suspended. Published fee rates describe the underlying USTR schedule and should not be interpreted as charges currently being collected. Tide Signal will update this page if USTR extends, modifies or resumes the action.