What Returns on November 10 When the China Ship Fee Suspension Expires

The Section 301 port fees on China-linked vessels have been collecting nothing since 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on 10 November 2025. They were not repealed, reduced or negotiated away. The U.S. Trade Representative suspended them for one year, and that year runs out at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 9 November 2026.

A twelve-month ocean contract signed this month spends nine of its months on the far side of that date. The regulatory risk is already known; the unanswered question is who absorbs it if the suspension ends.

One clarification before the detail, because two unrelated measures share a name. This post covers the Section 301 fee on ships, from the USTR investigation into China’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors. It is not the Section 301 tariff on imported goods, which we covered separately in how the replacement tariff system works. Same statute, different instrument, different payer, different status.

Are the Section 301 vessel fees still in effect?

No fee is being collected. USTR suspended the responsive actions in this investigation from 12:01 a.m. EST on 10 November 2025 through 11:59 p.m. EST on 9 November 2026, and the notice states that during the suspension period no party accrues liability for or is required to pay the fees under Annexes I, II or III. The suspension also covers the 100% additional duties imposed on ship-to-shore cranes and certain intermodal chassis and chassis parts under Annex V.A.

The suspension followed the trade and economic deal announced by the White House on 1 November 2025. China also suspended its retaliatory special port fees on U.S.-linked vessels for a corresponding one-year period, which is the measure covered in the retaliatory fee explainer.

What did not happen is repeal. The fee schedule sits underneath the suspension with its calendar dates intact, and the 17 April 2026 step-up passed four months ago inside a suspended action rather than being cancelled.

When do the Section 301 vessel fees come back?

The suspension expires at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 9 November 2026, unless USTR extends or modifies it first. You will see both 9 November and 10 November quoted as the deadline, and each is correct. The Federal Register notice sets the suspension to run through the close of 9 November, then refers in its own monitoring section to the “November 10, 2026 suspension deadline.” The last free day is 9 November. The action resumes 10 November unless USTR acts first.

USTR states it will consider whether to continue the suspension or whether further action is appropriate in advance of that deadline. As of publication, no extension, modification or resumption has been announced.

What the published schedule says returns

Every figure below is currently collecting zero. These are the amounts in the USTR action notice, not amounts anyone is paying today.

Effective date in the notice	Annex I, per net ton	Annex II, per net ton	Annex II, per container discharged
14 October 2025	$50	$18	$120
17 April 2026	$80	$23	$153
17 April 2027	$110	$28	$195
17 April 2028	$140	$33	$250

Published schedule from the USTR Notice of Action, 17 April 2025. Annex I applies to Chinese vessel operators and vessels owned by Chinese entities. Annex II applies to Chinese-built vessels operated by non-Chinese operators, charged at whichever of the two calculations is higher. All amounts suspended and collecting $0 since 10 November 2025.

Both annexes cap at five charges per vessel per year, assessed on entry at the first U.S. port from a foreign destination, per rotation or string of U.S. port calls. The annexes are not cumulative: the ordering rules determine which applicable annex governs rather than stacking several vessel fees on the same entry.

There is a gap in the published notices worth watching. They set the suspension window and confirm that no liability accrues inside it. They do not expressly say which scheduled tier a resumption on 10 November 2026 would pick up. The 17 April 2026 step is already on the calendar, so the published schedule points to $80 per net ton under Annex I and $23 per net ton or $153 per container under Annex II, whichever Annex II calculation is higher. But the suspension notice does not expressly confirm how that schedule will be applied on resumption. Confirm the regulatory tier against USTR or CBP guidance rather than assuming it.

Who actually pays a Section 301 vessel fee?

The cargo owner is not directly assessed the regulatory fee. Under Annex I, USTR expressly places payment responsibility on the vessel operator. Annex II is less straightforward: its liability provision applies the fee to a non-Chinese vessel operator using a Chinese-built vessel, while its separate fee-payment provision states that the vessel owner must pay accumulated fees for which it is liable as determined by CBP. For Annex II, confirm the applicable payment mechanics with CBP or USTR rather than assuming which party remits the charge.

That makes the shipper’s exposure contractual rather than a direct regulatory assessment. During the four weeks the fees were live in October and November 2025, several major carriers publicly said they would not introduce a dedicated USTR surcharge. What happens if the fees return in November 2026 will depend on the carrier’s pricing approach and, for contract cargo, what the rate agreement permits the carrier to pass through.

Figures circulating from the pre-implementation period are not a guide here. Our own March 2025 post on exporter warnings of $600 to $800 per container reported an industry projection made against a much larger proposed fee structure that was never adopted. Treat it as a record of what the trade feared in early 2025, not as a number to budget against.

What to check in an ocean contract that runs past 9 November

This is a list of questions for your counsel and your carrier rep, not legal advice. The point is to establish before signature whether a resumed government fee is inside or outside your rate.

Is there a change-in-law or regulatory-change clause, and does it let the carrier recover a newly imposed or resumed government charge mid-term without renegotiation.
How is “surcharge” defined. Some definitions reach only carrier-originated charges such as fuel and peak season. Others sweep in duties, taxes and government-imposed fees, which is the language that matters here.
What notice period applies before a new pass-through can be applied to bookings already accepted.
What happens on vessel substitution. On trades where Annex II is the relevant exposure, if the carrier swaps in Chinese-built tonnage on a string that previously used non-Chinese-built vessels, does the rate hold.
Whether the clause is reciprocal. If the fee stays suspended or is reduced, does anything oblige the carrier to remove a surcharge it introduced in anticipation.

Which vessels are exempt from the Section 301 port fee?

The exemption list applies to Annex II only, and this is the detail most summaries lose. Annex II covers Chinese-built vessels operated by non-Chinese operators. A vessel caught by Annex I, meaning it is operated by a Chinese entity or owned by a Chinese entity, has no equivalent Annex II carve-out list. If a vessel falls under Annex I, the screening below does not remove that exposure.

For Annex II, the action exempts U.S. government cargo and lists several excluded vessel categories. USTR clarified some of the criteria in October 2025, including how the vessel-size thresholds apply:

U.S.-owned or U.S.-flagged vessels enrolled in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, the Maritime Security Program, the Tanker Security Program or the Cable Security Program
Vessels arriving empty or in ballast
Fully cellular container vessels with capacity equal to or less than 4,000 TEU
Bulk carriers with capacity equal to or less than 80,000 deadweight tons
Other vessels with capacity equal to or less than 55,000 deadweight tons
Vessels entering a continental U.S. port after a voyage of less than 2,000 nautical miles, measured by the distance actually traveled from the furthest foreign port call
U.S.-owned vessels where the owning U.S. entity is controlled by U.S. persons and at least 75 percent beneficially owned by U.S. persons
Specialised vessels purpose-built for bulk liquid chemical transport
Vessels principally identified as Lakers Vessels on CBP Form 1300

Two of those are worth a second look. Smaller fully cellular container vessels and genuinely short foreign-to-U.S. voyages can sit outside Annex II even when the vessel itself was built in China. But neither test can be applied from a route label alone: the capacity threshold depends on vessel type, and the 2,000-nautical-mile test uses the distance actually traveled from the furthest foreign port call rather than simply the last foreign port before the U.S. call. The vessel-nexus screening test in the quick vessel test still works for sorting ownership questions.

Why Annex II exposure can change sailing by sailing

USTR’s formal ordering rules first account for LNG vessels and vehicle carriers under other annexes. For vessels outside those categories, the next relevant screening question is whether Annex I applies. Annex I is driven by Chinese operator or ownership nexus: where the vessel was built does not decide that exposure. Annex II can then apply to Chinese-built vessels operated outside that Annex I nexus.

That is where vessel assignment becomes a sailing-level problem. A non-Chinese carrier may operate a mix of Chinese-built and non-Chinese-built tonnage, so two containers moving on the same service under the same contract six weeks apart can face different Annex II exposure depending on the hull assigned to each sailing.

The Annex II exemptions compound this because several are vessel attributes rather than contract attributes. A service that runs fully cellular container vessels of 4,000 TEU or less this quarter and larger vessels next quarter can change its exposure profile without the rate agreement changing. Substituting a Chinese-built vessel for a non-Chinese-built vessel during schedule recovery can do the same.

A contract clause settles whether a regulatory cost can be passed through to the customer. It does not tell you which sailings create that cost in the first place. For Annex II, that second half is a vessel-identification job: operator and ownership nexus, build country, vessel type and any applicable exemption all need to be resolved against the actual sailing.

If screening which sailings sit on Chinese-built tonnage currently means opening a carrier portal booking by booking, walk through how ops teams track vessel assignment across carriers in a single view.

What could happen before 9 November

USTR has committed only to considering the question in advance of the deadline. Several outcomes remain possible, and the notices do not signal which is favoured.

Extension. The suspension was granted on the premise of China’s commitment to negotiate under Section 301. Continued progress in those talks could support continuation of the suspension.

Expiry. If no further U.S. action is taken, the suspension ends after 9 November and the Section 301 action resumes on 10 November, with the applicable fee tier still requiring confirmation. China’s reciprocal suspension is scheduled to expire on a corresponding timetable unless Beijing separately extends or modifies it.

Modification. USTR retained the option of further action, and the October 2025 notice had already reworked parts of Annexes III and V before the suspension landed. A resumption at different amounts or different scope remains possible.

Political pressure exists in both directions. USTR received roughly 70 comments on the suspension proposal, most in support, while some commenters opposing the suspension argued that pausing the remedy undercut the shipbuilding investment it was meant to support. In June 2026 two U.S. senators wrote to Ambassador Greer pressing the office on the suspension’s effect on domestic shipbuilding. None of that predicts the outcome. It does mean the issue is likely to receive attention before the deadline, which is the practical reason to have the contract clause settled rather than to wait for the final decision.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

New Report: The Future of SCM, and Why Visibility Alone Is No Longer Enough

[TRADLINX Report] 2026 Shipping Market Outlook: Falling Rates, Rising Risks