The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) issued a statement reminding regulated entities of the consequences of U.S. Shipping Act violations. The statement described two recent FMC compromise agreements that resulted in monetary penalties as well as 12 months of independent monitoring.

According to the FMC’s statement, Double Ace Cargo Inc., a Florida-based non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC), allegedly transported shipments on behalf of entities that were not licensed NVOCCs, did not have bonds, and did not publish tariffs. This is a violation of the U.S. Shipping Act. In compromise of these allegations, Double Ace paid $165,000 in civil penalties. Double Ace also agreed to accept and self-finance 12 months of independent monitoring of their business practices.

In June 2023, Double Ace paid $115,000 in civil penalties for transporting shipments on behalf of entities that were not licensed NVOCCs, did not have bonds, and did not publish tariffs. As part of the compromise agreement, the Commission ordered its Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations, and Compliance (BEIC) to re-examine Double Ace’s conduct after six months to ensure compliance with the U.S. Shipping Act.

Thereafter, BEIC completed another investigation in early 2024 resulting in a second compromise agreement. BEIC alleged that Double Ace again violated the U.S. Shipping Act. According to BEIC, Double Ace continued to transport shipments for entities that were not licensed NVOCCs, did not have bonds, and did not publish tariffs. This time Double Ace paid $50,000 in civil penalties. In addition to the penalty payment, Double Ace agreed to accept and pay for 12 months of independent monitoring. The independent monitor provides monthly reports about Double Ace’s shipping practices directly to the FMC BEIC Director.

The FMC deposits penalty payments into the General Fund of the United States. The Commission receives no portion of the financial penalties.

The FMC encourages regulated entities to self-report violations as this can help to mitigate the consequences of non-compliant activity.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice of proposed action to impose certain fees and restrictions on Chinese-built ships to promote the transport of goods on U.S. vessels. These fees and restrictions are aimed at eliminating China’s acts, policies, and practices targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance. USTR found China’s practices to be unreasonable and to burden or restrict US commerce.

This notice was issued following an investigation requested by five national labor unions in March 2024. The labor unions filed a Section 301 petition with USTR requesting an investigation into the acts, policies, and practices of China targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance. The five petitioner unions are the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO CLC (“USW”); the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”); the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO/CLC (“IBB”); the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”); and the Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO (“MTD”).

USTR proposes to impose the below fees and restrictions.

• Service Fee on Chinese Maritime Transport Operators:

A vessel operator of China to be charged a fee on the international maritime transport being provided

• (a) at a rate of up to $1,000,000 per entrance of any vessel of that operator to a U.S. port; or
• (b) per entrance of any vessel of that operator to a U.S. port, at a rate of up to $1,000 per net ton of the vessel’s capacity.

• Service Fee on Maritime Transport Operators with Fleets Comprised of Chinese-Built Vessels:

Upon the entrance of a Chinese-built vessel to a U.S. port, a fee to be charged to that vessel’s operator on the international maritime transport provided via that vessel

• (a) at a rate of up to $1,500,000;
• (b) based on the percentage of Chinese-built vessels in that operator’s fleet: for operators with 50 percent or greater of their fleet comprised of Chinese-built vessels, the operator will be charged up to $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; for operators with greater than 25 percent and less than 50 percent of their fleet comprised of Chinese-built vessels, the operator will be charged a fee up to $750,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; for operators with greater than 0 percent and less than 25 percent of their fleet comprised of Chinese-built vessels, the operator will be charged a fee up to $500,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; or
• (c) based on the percentage of Chinese-built vessels in an operator’s fleet: an additional fee of up to $1,000,000 will be charged to a vessel operator per vessel entrance to a U.S. port if the number of Chinese-built vessels in the operator’s fleet is equal to or greater than 25 percent.

• Service Fee on Maritime Transport Operators with Prospective Orders for Chinese Vessels:
An additional fee based on the percentage of vessels ordered from Chinese shipyards:

• (a) for operators with 50 percent or greater of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyards or vessels expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months, the operator will be charged up to $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; for operators with greater than 25 percent and less than 50 percent of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyards or expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months, the operator will be charged up to $750,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; for operators with greater than 0 percent and less than 25 percent of their vessel orders in Chinese shipyards or expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months, the operator will be charged up to $500,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port; or
• (b) a fee of up to $1,000,000 per vessel entrance to a U.S. port will be charged to a vessel operator if 25 percent or more of the total number of vessels ordered by that operator, or expected to be delivered to that operator, are ordered or expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months.

• Service Fee Remission for Maritime Transport via U.S.-built Vessels:
Additional fees on the maritime transport services charged to an operator addressed in this section, may be refunded, on a calendar year basis, in an amount up to $1,000,000 per entry into a U.S. port of a U.S.-built vessel through which the operator is providing international maritime transport services.

• Restrictions on services to promote the transport of U.S. goods on U.S. Vessels:
The international maritime transport of all U.S. goods, such as capital goods, consumer goods, agricultural products, and chemical, petroleum, or gas products, must comply with the following schedule:

• Effective as of the date of action, the international maritime transport of at least 1 percent of U.S. products, per calendar year, that is exported by vessel, is restricted to export on U.S.-flagged vessels by U.S. operators.
• Effective as of 2 years following the date of action, the international maritime transport of at least 3 percent of U.S. products, per calendar year, that is exported by vessel, is restricted to export on U.S.-flagged vessels by U.S. operators.
• Effective as of 3 years following the date of action, the international maritime transport of at least 5 percent of U.S. goods, per calendar year, that is exported by vessel, is restricted to export on U.S.-flagged vessels by U.S. operators, of which 3 percent must be U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built vessels, by U.S. operators.
• Effective as of 7 years following the date of action, the international maritime transport of at least 15 percent of U.S. goods, per calendar year, is restricted to export on U.S.-flagged vessels by U.S. operators, of which 5 percent must be U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built vessels, by U.S. operators.

• The international maritime transport of U.S. goods must comply with the following restriction:
U.S. goods are to be exported on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built vessels, but may be approved for export on a non-U.S.-built vessel provided the operator providing international maritime transport services demonstrates that at least 20 percent of U.S. products, per calendar year, that the operator will transport by vessel, will be transported on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built ships.

• Other Actions:
Actions to reduce exposure to and risks from China’s promotion of the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform (LOGINK) or other similar platforms, such as recommending that relevant U.S. agencies investigate alleged anticompetitive practices from Chinese shipping companies, restricting LOGINK access to U.S. shipping data, or banning or continuing to ban terminals at U.S. ports and U.S. ports from using LOGINK software.

In addition to the proposed actions, USTR may consider entering into negotiations with allies and partners in order to counteract China’s acts, policies, and practices and to reduce dependencies on China in the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sector.

USTR will hold a public hearing about the proposed actions on March 24, 2025. The deadline to submit a request to appear at the hearing is March 10, 2025. The deadline for submission of comments is March 24, 2025. For details on comment submission see https://comments.ustr.gov/s/. The complete notice may be viewed on the Federal Register.

Several leading carriers serving the Transpacific container trades have recently updated their respective tariffs to include new General Rate Increases (GRIs) effective March 15, 2025, including CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen, Hapag Lloyd, HMM Company Limited, Ocean Network Express (ONE), 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 March 15th GRIs will be the sixth GRI of 2025 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 April 1, 2025, including CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen, Hapag Lloyd, HMM Company Limited, Ocean Network Express (ONE), 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 1st GRIs will be the seventh GRI of 2025 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.

Several carriers serving the East Asia/USA trade lanes (U.S. Imports) have adjusted fuel surcharges effective April 1 through June 30, 2025. Details are as follows.

NOTE 1:  CMA CGM calls the above surcharge the Bunker Adjustment Factor Surcharge (BAF03), Tariff Rule No. 010.08. Low Sulphur Surcharge IMO2020 (LSS20) is not applicable at this time.

NOTE 2:  COSCO calls the above surcharge the Bunker Charge (BUC), Tariff Rule No. 010-003.

NOTE 3: HMM calls the above charge the Bunker Charge, tariff Rule 2-63. HMM also filed in its FMC tariff Rule 2-95, Environmental Compliance Charge (ECC), effective April 1, 2025. The ECC amounts are USD 200/223/250/282 per 20/40/40HC/45ft, respectively, for destination USWC/USWC Local/IPI/MLB; and USD 324/360/405/456 per 20/40/40HC/45ft, respectively, for destination USEC (all water)/USGC/RIPI.

NOTE 4:  ONE calls the above surcharge the ONE Bunker Surcharge (OBS). Any reference to Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF) or Fuel Adjustment Factor (FAF) within a duly filed service contract shall be construed as referencing the same surcharge as ONE Bunker Surcharge (OBS) as detailed within Tariff Rule No. 102.001, whether as an exception or as a reference to this charge.

NOTE 5:  OOCL calls the above surcharge the Fuel Cost Recovery Charge (T-62). The Fuel Cost Recovery Charge will not apply to shipments when Bunker Surcharge and/or Low Sulphur Fuel Surcharge and/or Low Sulphur Adjustment Charge are already applied or included in the base rate.

NOTE 6:  ZIM calls the above surcharge the New Bunker Factor – Far East (NBF), Tariff Rule No. 010-NB. Service contract cargoes subject to Carrier’s published BAF and/or EBS shall not be subject to NBF.

NOTE 7:  Subject to Low Sulphur Fuel Charge (LSF or LSS).

NOTE 8:  Updated on a monthly basis.

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

Several carriers serving the USA/East Asia trade lanes (U.S. Exports) have adjusted their fuel surcharges for the April to June 2025 quarter. Here is a table of carriers that have posted BAF amounts:

NOTE 1:  CMA CGM calls the above Bunker surcharge the Bunker Adjustment Factor Surcharge (BAF-03), tariff Rule No. 010.4. Low Sulphur Surcharge IMO2020 (LSS20) is not applicable at this time.

NOTE 2:  COSCO calls the above surcharge the Bunker Surcharge (BUC), Tariff Rule No. 010-001.

NOTE 3:  HMM calls the above charge the Bunker Surcharge (BUC) Rule No. 10-02A. HMM also filed in its FMC tariff Rule 10-02F, Environmental Compliance Charge (ECC), effective April 1, 2025. The ECC amounts are USD 50/100/100/100 per 20/40/40HC/45ft, respectively, for dry cargo moving via West Coast; and USD 28/55/55/55 per 20/40/40HC/45ft, respectively, for dry cargo moving via East Coast, Gulf.

NOTE 4:  ONE calls the above surcharge the ONE Bunker Surcharge (OBS). Any reference to Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF) or Fuel Adjustment Factor (FAF) within a duly filed service contract shall be construed as referencing the same surcharge as ONE Bunker Surcharge (OBS) as detailed within Tariff Rule No. 102.001, whether as an exception or as a reference to this charge.

NOTE 5:  OOCL calls the surcharge the Fuel Cost Recovery Charge (T-62). The Fuel Cost Recovery Charge will not apply to shipments when Bunker Surcharge and/or Low Sulphur Fuel Surcharge and/or Low Sulphur Adjustment Charge are already applied or included in the base rate.

NOTE 6:  Yang Ming calls the above surcharge the New Bunker Charge, Tariff Rule No. 10-AH.

NOTE 7:  ZIM calls the above surcharge the New Bunker Factor – Far East (NBF), Tariff Rule No. 010-NB.

NOTE 8:  Subject to Low Sulphur Fuel Charge (LSF or LSS).

NOTE 9:  Updated on a monthly basis.

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.