The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) issued a statement on the Middle East conflict’s impact on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz. The Commission is tasked with ensuring that ocean carriers’ responses to the recent conflict comply with the Shipping Act.

Under FMC’s regulations ocean common carriers must provide at least 30 days’ notice of tariff changes that will result in increased cost to shippers. The FMC encourages shippers to review their ocean common carrier’s tariff. The FMC maintains a list of tariff locations for Vessel-Operating Common Carriers and Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers.

Additionally, vessel-operating common carriers are responsible for filing service contracts with the FMC in a timely and accurate manner. Service contracts may incorporate the carrier’s published tariff. In such cases, incorporated tariff charges must be applied based on the date of cargo receipt.

Lastly, the Commission reminds shippers that allegations of Shipping Act violations may be filed directly with the Commission. The Commission may investigate Shipping Act violations, and issue fines to ocean common carriers and award damages to shippers. Shippers may also contact the FMC’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services for alternative dispute resolution services.

The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Chair Laura DiBella issued the following statement on Special Permission applications. In March, several major ocean carriers filed Special Permission applications requesting shortened time periods for new surcharges due to the conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz. The FMC rejected the applications for lack of good cause.

The Shipping Act and Commission regulations require a 30-day notice period before an increase in the rates and charges in a filed tariff become effective. 46 CFR 520.8. This notice period gives shippers crucial time to adjust to changes and explore their options. However, under 46 CFR 520.14, a carrier can request that the Commission shorten this time period. The standard for granting a request for “special permission” to implement an increase with less than 30 days’ notice is that the carrier must demonstrate good cause for the requested exception to the rules.

The authority to evaluate whether good cause has been shown was formerly delegated to the Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Trade Analysis. In a 2025 rulemaking, the agency withdrew this delegation, meaning that special permission requests are now evaluated and ruled upon by majority vote of the Commissioners.

There are certainly circumstances that warrant granting special permission requests. Sudden shocks to the supply chain can be difficult for both carriers and shippers to absorb. At the same time, granting an exception to the way the Shipping Act allocates risk between shippers and carriers is a significant matter, requiring careful deliberation.

Recently, several carriers requested special permission to implement, on less than 30 days’ notice, war risk or conflict surcharges connected to the ongoing situation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. There are undoubtably increased costs and uncertainties for both carriers and shippers in these circumstances. However, after careful consideration, I voted to disapprove these special permission requests because I did not believe that good cause for an exception had been shown.

In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge. An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause. Instead, carriers should provide information to support a conclusion that the amount and duration of the surcharge is reasonably related to the increased costs it is intended to address. This transparency would assure shippers that surcharges are being used solely to adjust to unpredicted circumstances. In the event a carrier prefers not to provide transparency on its surcharges, it can instead wait the full 30 days before such surcharges are implemented. This approach to assessing whether good cause has been shown will better balance the risks borne by shippers and carriers, and will increase shipper confidence that carriers are calculating surcharges reasonably.

The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) received one new formal complaint in March 2026 alleging violations of the U.S. Shipping Act and FMC regulations.

Unreasonable Shipment Handling Practices – FMC Docket No. 26-04:  Orleans International, Inc., a Michigan-based meat importer, filed a formal complaint against Hapag-Lloyd, alleging that Hapag violated the U.S. Shipping Act by charging unjust and unreasonable detention and demurrage charges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Specifically, Orleans alleges that between 2021 and 2022, Hapag charged Orleans excessive demurrage and detention charges. Orleans claims it was unreasonable for Hapag to charge detention and demurrage fees when Orleans was unable to pick up or return containers due to circumstances outside of Orlean’s control, such as congestion at ports and shortages of equipment.

As a result of Hapag’s actions, Orleans alleges that it paid at least $1.162 million in unjust and unreasonable detention and demurrage charges.

Orleans requests the Commission order Hapag to pay Orleans reparations, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, order Hapag to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct, and provide any other further relief that the FMC deems appropriate.

For more details visit the FMC’s online reading room. The FMC’s reading room provides access to FMC dockets, related documents, notices, and orders.

The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission Chair Laura DiBella issued the following statement on China’s recent detention of Panama-flagged vessels.

The Federal Maritime Commission is closely monitoring how recent developments surrounding the Panama Canal terminals and China’s retaliatory actions against Panama are affecting global shipping conditions. Laws administered by the Commission empower it to investigate whether regulations or practices of foreign governments result in conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States.

On January 30, 2026, Panama’s Supreme Court invalidated the legal framework supporting Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s concession to operate the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals on the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the Panama Canal. The decision followed an audit that uncovered alleged irregularities and raised questions about the concession’s legal basis. Following the ruling, the Panamanian government appointed U.S. subsidiaries Maersk APM Terminals and Mediterranean Shipping Company’s (MSC) Terminal Investment Limited as interim operators under 18-month agreements. CK Hutchison has rejected the ruling, initiated legal proceedings against the Panamanian government, and has steadily escalated its arbitration campaign – including new actions filed as recently as March 24, which seek more than $2 billion in damages.

In a parallel response, the Chinese Ministry of Transport summoned Maersk and MSC to Beijing for high‑level discussions. Chinese government-owned carrier COSCO subsequently suspended its services at Balboa and rerouted operations.

China has now imposed a surge in detentions of Panama‑flagged vessels in Chinese ports under the guise of port state control, far exceeding historical norms. These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets. Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of U.S. containerized trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to U.S. shipping.

The FMC is charged with ensuring an efficient, competitive, and economical transportation system for the benefit of the United States. Actions by foreign governments that detain, delay, or otherwise impede the movement of vessels documented under U.S. law- or vessels of other nations engaged in commerce with the United States- are inconsistent with the Commission’s mandate to protect the reliability and integrity of America’s global supply chain.

Several leading carriers serving the Transpacific container trades have recently updated their respective tariffs to include new General Rate Increases (GRIs) effective April 15, 2026, including CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen, Hapag Lloyd, HMM Company Limited, Yang Ming, and ZIM. See table below for GRI amounts per 40ft container; GRI amounts for all other container sizes are as per formula. The April 15th GRIs will be the eighth GRI of 2026 for the East Asia/USA trade lane. 

NOTE 1:  COSCO GRIs apply on all cargo moving under service contracts only.   

NOTE 2:  Evergreen GRIs will be USD 3000 per 40ft container for dry cargo, and USD 3000 per reefer container. GRI amounts for all other container sizes are as per formula. 

Some carriers also updated their tariffs to include new General Rate Increases (GRIs) effective May 1, 2026, including CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen, Hapag Lloyd, HMM Company Limited, Yang Ming, and ZIM. See table below for GRI amounts per 40ft container; GRI amounts for all other container sizes are as per formula. The May 1st GRIs will be the ninth GRI of 2026 for the East Asia/USA trade lane. 

NOTE 1:  COSCO GRIs apply on all cargo moving under service contracts only.   

NOTE 2:  Evergreen GRIs will be USD 3000 per 40ft container for dry cargo, and USD 3000 per reefer container. GRI amounts for all other container sizes are as per formula. 

Each carrier maintains its own tariffs and controls its own pricing.

The information contained herein is obtained from reliable sources. It is subject to change at any time, however, depending on changes in laws and regulations. While we continually attempt to monitor this information, we do not guarantee its accuracy and are not responsible for any damages suffered by any party in reliance on it.