just!Dafei's comments on the United States' proposed measures for China's maritime, logi
- Author:weiyun.com
- Source:weiyun.com
- Release Date:2025-03-27
On March 24, local time, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) held a public hearing on its intended restrictive measures on China's maritime, logistics, shipbuilding and other fields.
In fact, after the USTR announced the relevant information in February, China's Ministry of Commerce responded many times that the US abused the 301 investigation method out of domestic political needs, which is a further damage to the multilateral trading system.
The proposed restrictions on the imposition of port fees and other measures to harm others and themselves. Not only will it not revitalize the US shipbuilding industry, but it will increase the transportation costs of shipping routes related to the US, increase the inflation pressure in the US, reduce the global competitiveness of US goods, and damage the interests of US ports, terminal operators and workers.
It is worth noting that at the hearing on March 24, many opposition voices just echoed China's position.
American shipping companies: This is the life of our American companies. The World Shipping Council issued a statement on its official website that day that its CEO Kramerk said at a hearing on the 24th that the World Shipping Council strongly opposed the proposal of Chinese-made ships and fleets containing Chinese-made ships or fleets ordered from China.
This will exacerbate inflation among American consumers and businesses, threaten employment, and have a particularly negative impact on U.S. farmers and other exporters, the article said.
According to Reuters, Gonzalez, CEO of Seaboard Marine, the largest international shipping company in Florida-based U.S., testified at the hearing that these measures aimed at promoting the return of the U.S. shipbuilding industry may destroy U.S. shipping companies, which is not in the national interest of the United States.
Data shows that like many U.S. maritime companies, Seaboard Marine relies on Chinese-made vessels to maintain its business, and 16 of the company's fleet of 24 ships are made in China.
Metcalf, CEO of the American Shipping Chamber of Commerce, said that wanting to replace a Chinese-made ship is not as simple as clicking a switch, so punishing the US-China offshore transportation system is an unacceptable result.
Dafei's Comments on the U.S. Investigation of Proposed Measures against China's Maritime, Logistics and Shipbuilding Article 301, Dafei Ship CMA CGM is a leading global maritime, land, air and logistics solutions company headquartered in France. He would like to submit the following comments on the proposed measures proposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the Federal Register announcement on February 27, 2025.
1. CMA CGM Background Introduction CMA CGM is headquartered in Marseille, France. It has a wide range of business in the United States, covering shipping services, port and terminal operations, logistics and air transport.For example, CMA CGM operates a huge fleet serving the U.S. market (including the U.S. Presidential Steering Company APL), which will handle approximately 5 million TEUs in the U.S. in 2024.The company also owns and operates multiple container terminals in the United States, including key hubs such as Miami, Houston, New York, Los Angeles and the Port of Netherlands.
CMA CGM reiterates its firm commitment to rebuilding a strong U.S. fleet and shipbuilding capabilities.The company plans to significantly expand its business in the United States and has announced that it will invest $20 billion in the United States in the next four years to create 10,000 jobs.These investments will be used to build port infrastructure, improve U.S. logistics capacity (including the development of national advanced warehousing and automobile logistics platforms), establishing important air cargo hubs in Chicago and deploying five new Boeing 777 cargo aircraft to enhance U.S. air transport capacity, and increasing the size of U.S. flag fleet from 10 to 30 and deepening investment in U.S. maritime business.
2. CMA CGM agrees with the comments of the World Shipping Council (WSC). As one of the members of the World Shipping Council (WSC), CMA CGM agrees with the comments submitted by the WSC to USTR on March 24, 2025 on the actions to be taken.
Like WSC, CMA CGM fully supports the U.S. government’s goal of building a strong and vibrant U.S. shipbuilding and maritime operations industry.However, CMA CGM is also concerned with USTR's proposal to impose additional port fees and new taxes on shipping companies docking in U.S. ports.If this fee is imposed, it will cause consumers and producers in the domestic U.S. market to face price increases, while increasing the costs of U.S. exporters, thereby reducing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing products and agricultural products in the export market.
In addition, this is also a core issue that CMA CGM is concerned about and prioritized by CMA CGM - CMA CGM is concerned that the proposed increase in port fees will have a potential negative impact on U.S. port employment growth.CMA CGM is proud of its investment in U.S. port infrastructure, and the positive impact it has had on local communities.The dramatic increase in port fees could lead to the diversion of goods from U.S. ports, disrupting the virtuous cycle of employment growth that CMA CGM is helping to establish day after day.
CMA CGM is also concerned that the proposed port fee will have a negative impact on U.S. port congestion.As the WSC noted in a written comment, the proposed fees may incentivize carriers to reduce the number of ports each time they make their way to the U.S.Large ports with concentrated demand may experience increased traffic and increased congestion, which in turn puts huge pressure on land-connected infrastructure and leads to delays in U.S. importers and exporters.Meanwhile, there may be a decrease in traffic at small ports, which will negatively affect employment in these ports and their surrounding communities.
Regarding the U.S. shipbuilding industry, the average price of medium-sized container ships currently built in U.S. shipyards (even if not complying with the Jones Act) is three times the price of building in an allied country such as South Korea or Japan.This gap with market prices needs to be compensated at least in the early stages, thus providing enough time for the U.S. industry to restore competitiveness.
In addition, the offshore operation industry faces a serious shortage of crew members in the United States.The US flag ship requires the crew to be a U.S. citizen and hold relevant U.S. certificates.Therefore, it will be very difficult to achieve in the short term to rapidly increase the use of U.S. flagship container ships.CMA CGM is concerned that forcibly implementing this requirement could lead to a serious shortage of container ships available for export, thereby actually limiting the export volume of U.S. products and causing a substantial increase in sea freight rates.CMA CGM supports the establishment of specialized programs to accelerate and strengthen training and licensing for U.S. seafarers and simplify U.S. flag shipping procedures.
Finally, CMA CGM agrees with other members of the WSC that the proposed fee imposed on vessels that have been ordered or in service will not have any impact on the conduct, policies and practices of the USTR investigation.Therefore, the proposed costs are neither feasible nor effective in practice to achieve the goal of eliminating relevant Chinese behaviors, policies and practices, and under Article 301, this goal is the statutory basis for the implementation of any remedies by the Trade Representative.
For all of the above reasons, CMA CGM supports WSC's written comments.
Since the news that the US government wants to take restrictive measures on China's maritime, logistics, shipbuilding and other fields, many comprehensive media and industry media around the world have published reports, warning that this will have a negative impact on world trade and the United States will also suffer losses.
However, nearly 300 companies, trading groups and individuals submitted comments or requested a speech at the hearing, and almost all groups opposed the proposals proposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative...
In fact, after the USTR announced the relevant information in February, China's Ministry of Commerce responded many times that the US abused the 301 investigation method out of domestic political needs, which is a further damage to the multilateral trading system.
The proposed restrictions on the imposition of port fees and other measures to harm others and themselves. Not only will it not revitalize the US shipbuilding industry, but it will increase the transportation costs of shipping routes related to the US, increase the inflation pressure in the US, reduce the global competitiveness of US goods, and damage the interests of US ports, terminal operators and workers.
It is worth noting that at the hearing on March 24, many opposition voices just echoed China's position.
American shipping companies: This is the life of our American companies. The World Shipping Council issued a statement on its official website that day that its CEO Kramerk said at a hearing on the 24th that the World Shipping Council strongly opposed the proposal of Chinese-made ships and fleets containing Chinese-made ships or fleets ordered from China.
This will exacerbate inflation among American consumers and businesses, threaten employment, and have a particularly negative impact on U.S. farmers and other exporters, the article said.
According to Reuters, Gonzalez, CEO of Seaboard Marine, the largest international shipping company in Florida-based U.S., testified at the hearing that these measures aimed at promoting the return of the U.S. shipbuilding industry may destroy U.S. shipping companies, which is not in the national interest of the United States.
Data shows that like many U.S. maritime companies, Seaboard Marine relies on Chinese-made vessels to maintain its business, and 16 of the company's fleet of 24 ships are made in China.
Metcalf, CEO of the American Shipping Chamber of Commerce, said that wanting to replace a Chinese-made ship is not as simple as clicking a switch, so punishing the US-China offshore transportation system is an unacceptable result.
Dafei's Comments on the U.S. Investigation of Proposed Measures against China's Maritime, Logistics and Shipbuilding Article 301, Dafei Ship CMA CGM is a leading global maritime, land, air and logistics solutions company headquartered in France. He would like to submit the following comments on the proposed measures proposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the Federal Register announcement on February 27, 2025.
1. CMA CGM Background Introduction CMA CGM is headquartered in Marseille, France. It has a wide range of business in the United States, covering shipping services, port and terminal operations, logistics and air transport.For example, CMA CGM operates a huge fleet serving the U.S. market (including the U.S. Presidential Steering Company APL), which will handle approximately 5 million TEUs in the U.S. in 2024.The company also owns and operates multiple container terminals in the United States, including key hubs such as Miami, Houston, New York, Los Angeles and the Port of Netherlands.
CMA CGM reiterates its firm commitment to rebuilding a strong U.S. fleet and shipbuilding capabilities.The company plans to significantly expand its business in the United States and has announced that it will invest $20 billion in the United States in the next four years to create 10,000 jobs.These investments will be used to build port infrastructure, improve U.S. logistics capacity (including the development of national advanced warehousing and automobile logistics platforms), establishing important air cargo hubs in Chicago and deploying five new Boeing 777 cargo aircraft to enhance U.S. air transport capacity, and increasing the size of U.S. flag fleet from 10 to 30 and deepening investment in U.S. maritime business.
2. CMA CGM agrees with the comments of the World Shipping Council (WSC). As one of the members of the World Shipping Council (WSC), CMA CGM agrees with the comments submitted by the WSC to USTR on March 24, 2025 on the actions to be taken.
Like WSC, CMA CGM fully supports the U.S. government’s goal of building a strong and vibrant U.S. shipbuilding and maritime operations industry.However, CMA CGM is also concerned with USTR's proposal to impose additional port fees and new taxes on shipping companies docking in U.S. ports.If this fee is imposed, it will cause consumers and producers in the domestic U.S. market to face price increases, while increasing the costs of U.S. exporters, thereby reducing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing products and agricultural products in the export market.
In addition, this is also a core issue that CMA CGM is concerned about and prioritized by CMA CGM - CMA CGM is concerned that the proposed increase in port fees will have a potential negative impact on U.S. port employment growth.CMA CGM is proud of its investment in U.S. port infrastructure, and the positive impact it has had on local communities.The dramatic increase in port fees could lead to the diversion of goods from U.S. ports, disrupting the virtuous cycle of employment growth that CMA CGM is helping to establish day after day.
CMA CGM is also concerned that the proposed port fee will have a negative impact on U.S. port congestion.As the WSC noted in a written comment, the proposed fees may incentivize carriers to reduce the number of ports each time they make their way to the U.S.Large ports with concentrated demand may experience increased traffic and increased congestion, which in turn puts huge pressure on land-connected infrastructure and leads to delays in U.S. importers and exporters.Meanwhile, there may be a decrease in traffic at small ports, which will negatively affect employment in these ports and their surrounding communities.
Regarding the U.S. shipbuilding industry, the average price of medium-sized container ships currently built in U.S. shipyards (even if not complying with the Jones Act) is three times the price of building in an allied country such as South Korea or Japan.This gap with market prices needs to be compensated at least in the early stages, thus providing enough time for the U.S. industry to restore competitiveness.
In addition, the offshore operation industry faces a serious shortage of crew members in the United States.The US flag ship requires the crew to be a U.S. citizen and hold relevant U.S. certificates.Therefore, it will be very difficult to achieve in the short term to rapidly increase the use of U.S. flagship container ships.CMA CGM is concerned that forcibly implementing this requirement could lead to a serious shortage of container ships available for export, thereby actually limiting the export volume of U.S. products and causing a substantial increase in sea freight rates.CMA CGM supports the establishment of specialized programs to accelerate and strengthen training and licensing for U.S. seafarers and simplify U.S. flag shipping procedures.
Finally, CMA CGM agrees with other members of the WSC that the proposed fee imposed on vessels that have been ordered or in service will not have any impact on the conduct, policies and practices of the USTR investigation.Therefore, the proposed costs are neither feasible nor effective in practice to achieve the goal of eliminating relevant Chinese behaviors, policies and practices, and under Article 301, this goal is the statutory basis for the implementation of any remedies by the Trade Representative.
For all of the above reasons, CMA CGM supports WSC's written comments.
Since the news that the US government wants to take restrictive measures on China's maritime, logistics, shipbuilding and other fields, many comprehensive media and industry media around the world have published reports, warning that this will have a negative impact on world trade and the United States will also suffer losses.
However, nearly 300 companies, trading groups and individuals submitted comments or requested a speech at the hearing, and almost all groups opposed the proposals proposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative...