Chinese shipbuilding industry

[Rank Amateur]

Announcement of the Ministry of Transport on the Collection of Special Port Fees for US Vessels

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

  2025年4月17日，美国贸易代表办公室发布关于对中国海事、物流及造船业301调查措施，自2025年10月14日起，将对中国企业拥有或经营的船舶、中国籍船舶及中国造船舶加收港口服务费，严重违背了国际贸易相关原则和中美海运协定，对中美间海运贸易造成严重破坏。

  根据《中华人民共和国国际海运条例》等法律法规和国际法基本原则，经国务院批准，自2025年10月14日起，对美国的企业、其他组织和个人拥有船舶所有权的船舶；美国的企业、其他组织和个人运营的船舶；美国的企业、其他组织和个人直接或间接持有25%及以上股权（表决权、董事会席位）的企业、其他组织拥有或运营的船舶；悬挂美国旗的船舶；在美国建造的船舶，由船舶挂靠港口所在地海事管理机构负责收取船舶特别港务费。有关事项公告如下：

  一、对上述船舶，按航次计收船舶特别港务费，分阶段实施，具体收取标准如下（不足1净吨的按1净吨计）。

  （一）自2025年10月14日起靠泊中国港口的，按每净吨400元人民币计收；

  （二）自2026年4月17日起靠泊中国港口的，按每净吨640元人民币计收；

  （三）自2027年4月17日起靠泊中国港口的，按每净吨880元人民币计收；

  （四）自2028年4月17日起靠泊中国港口的，按每净吨1120元人民币计收。

  二、船舶在同一航次挂靠多个中国港口的，仅在首个挂靠港缴纳船舶特别港务费，后续的挂靠港不再收取。同一艘船舶，一年内收取船舶特别港务费不超过5个航次。

  三、我部将制定具体实施办法。

交通运输部

2025年10月10日

On April 17, 2025, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued Section 301 investigation measures against China's maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. Effective October 14, 2025, additional port service fees will be levied on vessels owned or operated by Chinese companies, Chinese-flagged vessels, and Chinese-built vessels. This constitutes a serious violation of international trade principles and the China-US Maritime Transport Agreement, severely disrupting maritime trade between China and the US.


In accordance with the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on International Maritime Transport" and other laws and regulations, as well as basic principles of international law, and with the approval of the State Council, effective October 14, 2025, the maritime administration authorities of the ports where the vessels call will be responsible for collecting special port fees for vessels owned or operated by US companies, other organizations, or individuals; vessels operated by US companies, other organizations, or individuals; vessels owned or operated by companies or other organizations in which US companies, other organizations, or individuals directly or indirectly hold 25% or more of the equity (voting rights, board seats); vessels flying the US flag; and vessels built in the US. The relevant matters are announced as follows:

I. For the above-mentioned vessels, special port dues will be charged on a voyage-by-voyage basis, implemented in phases. The specific collection rates are as follows (vehicles less than 1 net ton will be rounded up to 1 net ton).

(I) Starting from October 14, 2025, special port dues will be charged at RMB 400 per net ton;

(II) Starting from April 17, 2026, special port dues will be charged at RMB 640 per net ton;

(III) Starting from April 17, 2027, special port dues will be charged at RMB 880 per net ton;

(IV) Starting from April 17, 2028, special port dues will be charged at RMB 1,120 per net ton.

II. For vessels calling at multiple Chinese ports on the same voyage, special port dues will only be paid at the first port of call. No special port dues will be charged at subsequent ports of call. Special port fees may not be collected for more than five voyages per year for the same vessel.

III. The Ministry will formulate specific implementation measures.

Ministry of Transport

October 10, 2025

What is this post doing here? Do you not know the difference between shipbuilding and shipping?

In fairness, there has already been quite a bit of discussion in this thread about (1) the anti-China port fees imposed by the U.S. and (2) possible Chinese retaliation, so I think tonyget's post belongs here.

 

[by78]

In fairness, there has already been quite a bit of discussion in this thread about (1) the anti-China port fees imposed by the U.S. and (2) possible Chinese retaliation, so I think tonyget's post belongs here.

Off-topic troll posts that cause prolonged discussions are still troll posts. It doesn't belong here per the mods.

 

[Wrought]

Korean shipyards have been sanctioned for their role in US port fees. This is much better than the previous measures targeting US-owned ships. Imposing real costs for shipping lines buying Korean instead of Chinese is the right way to counter attempts to reduce Chinese market share.

China has added five U.S. subsidiaries of South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean to its sanction list over their alleged involvement in Washington’s probe into the Chinese shipping industry, the latest move by Beijing amid renewed conflicts with the U.S. The sanctioned subsidiaries include Hanwha Shipping LLC, Hanwha Philly Shipyard Inc., Hanwha Ocean USA International LLC, Hanwha Shipping Holdings LLC, and HS USA Holdings Corp, according to a statement from China’s Commerce Ministry on Tuesday.

The order, set to take effect on Oct.14, will prohibit organizations and individuals in China from doing business with the sanctioned companies, the statement said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[iewgnem]

Korean shipyards have been sanctioned for their role in US port fees. This is much better than the previous measures targeting US-owned ships. Imposing real costs for shipping lines buying Korean instead of Chinese is the right way to counter attempts to reduce Chinese market share.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hanwha bought Philly Shipyard for $100M last year.

The plan: Americans want Koreans to help them catch up to China in shipbuilding.
The reality: China helps Koreans catch down to Americans in shipbuilding.

The sanctions prohibits any Chinese individual or business from doing business with Hanwha.
If China wants to interpret it in the strictest sense, all Hanwha built ships could be prohibited from docking in China, as that would require Chinese ports interacting with Hanwha equipment.

 

[by78]

Illustrations of a reactor compartment design for a nuclear icebreaker (beam: 32m, dual reactors, shaft output > 50MW).

 

[Mt1701d]

Hanwha bought Philly Shipyard for $100M last year.

The plan: Americans want Koreans to help them catch up to China in shipbuilding.
The reality: China helps Koreans catch down to Americans in shipbuilding.

The sanctions prohibits any Chinese individual or business from doing business with Hanwha.
If China wants to interpret it in the strictest sense, all Hanwha built ships could be prohibited from docking in China, as that would require Chinese ports interacting with Hanwha equipment.

I wonder if the shipyard will need to replace all their gantry cranes since supposedly China control 90% of the market.

 

[gelgoog]

Illustrations of a reactor compartment design for a nuclear icebreaker (beam: 32m, dual reactors, shaft output > 50MW).

That is huge. Basically a Chinese Project 22220 Arktika icebreaker.

 

[tphuang]

That is huge. Basically a Chinese Project 22220 Arktika icebreaker.

that's cool. eventually, they can build other nuclear powered ships if they can get good at this. also the reactor could be used for FNPP to supply remote islands and such.

 

[jnd85]

that's cool. eventually, they can build other nuclear powered ships if they can get good at this. also the reactor could be used for FNPP to supply remote islands and such.

Ice breakers have been the only area where you see nuclear propulsion outside of navies, and even then it has really all been Russia. From a historical perspective, Japan, Germany, and the US all tried nuclear powered merchant cargo vessels, but all were economic failures.

Nuclear get bounced around every now and then in civilian marine transport as an alternative to traditional Heavy Fuel Oil boats, which account for ~4% of greenhouse emissions. But for it to catch on commercially you first need draft laws protecting against liability and significant state subsidies. Think of the insurance costs, etc., for a private company. One sure tell to look for before any big industry shift toward nuclear marine propulsion is new legislation in that area.

That said, if China does commit to it I'm sure they'll deal with the legal hazard and fund the hell out of it. Increasing production volume is the fastest way to build up manufacturer know-how after all. None of the other non-Russian also-rans had eyes on the Northern Sea Route either. It just comes down to a question of priorities and where money is best spent.