Major maritime industry stakeholders are voicing strong opposition to any proposed port fees, including the suggested universal infrastructure or security fee on foreign-built commercial vessels calling at U.S. ports.
Almost a year after US President Donald Trump called for a revitalization of American shipbuilding, the White House released this month a detailed Maritime Action Plan that focuses on reversing decades of decline in U.S. shipbuilding and restoring the nation’s maritime industrial capacity to meet national security and economic objectives.
The release of “America’s Maritime Action Plan” calls -among other things- for a land port maintenance tax to balance payments from importations across land ports versus maritime ports and a universal fee on foreign-built vessels from any nation entering U.S. ports.
Responding to the proposed fees, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) said the imposition of fees based on the weight of imported tonnage, at levels ranging from 1 cent per kilogram to 25 cents per kilogram, would represent a substantial additional cost burden on maritime transport.
Such measures, ICS said, risk distorting trade, increasing costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, disrupting the smooth flow of global commerce, and could encourage retaliatory measures.
The policy recommends a universal infrastructure or security fee on all foreign-built commercial vessels calling at U.S. ports, to be assessed on the weight of the imported tonnage arriving on the vessel. The plan estimates a fee of 1 cent per kilogram on foreign-built ships would yield roughly $66bln in revenue over ten years and a fee of 25 cents per kilogram would yield close to $1.5trn in revenue, which could be used for the Maritime Security Trust Fund.
One of the key elements of the MAP is the establishment of the Land Port Maintenance Tax (Fee). Merchandise entering the United States through land ports of entry would be subject to a modest tax (0.125 percent of the value of the merchandise), ensuring that land ports contribute equitably to the costs of maintaining and improving critical trade infrastructure.
Even though ICS acknowledges the U.S. Government’s Maritime Action Plan and its stated position to revitalise and expand domestic shipbuilding and maritime capacity in the United States, it remains opposed to any proposed port fees, mentioning that shipping should be able to move trade “freely, efficiently, and without any unnecessary barriers.”
The ICS said that it supported the US’ ambition of increasing its shipbuilding capacity and industry but opposed the levying of fees on international shipping.
“The global nature of maritime transport requires policy solutions that are carefully coordinated and that avoid unintended consequences for supply chains and economic stability.”
“ICS remains committed to working constructively with the U.S. Administration, as well as international partners, to support policies that strengthen maritime capacity while safeguarding the efficiency and integrity of global trade,” the global trade association for shipowners and operators ICS added.
