<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">European Union trade partners are implementing trade-restricting measures at at “alarming” pace and their efforts to remove such hindrances has slowed, according to an annual EU report on protectionism released yesterday. </div>

European Union trade partners are implementing trade-restricting measures at at “alarming” pace and their efforts to remove such hindrances has slowed, according to an annual EU report on protectionism released yesterday.

<div>European Union trade partners are implementing trade-restricting measures at at “alarming” pace and their efforts to remove such hindrances has slowed, according to an <a>annual EU report on protectionism</a> released yesterday. “I regret to see that many countries still consider protectionism a valid policy tool,” EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said in a statement. “This goes clearly against the G20’s commitment to abstain from imposing trade restrictions and to remove existing ones.”From June 2013 through June 2014, G20 members and other key EU trading partners adopted a total of 170 new trade-unfriendly measures, an increase from the previous 13-month period,...

European Union trade partners are implementing trade-restricting measures at at “alarming” pace and their efforts to remove such hindrances has slowed, according to an annual EU report on protectionism released yesterday. “I regret to see that many countries still consider protectionism a valid policy tool,” EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said in a statement. “This goes clearly against the G20’s commitment to abstain from imposing trade restrictions and to remove existing ones.” From June 2013 through June 2014, G20 members and other key EU trading partners adopted a total of 170 new trade-unfriendly measures, an increase from the previous 13-month period, according to the report. Only 12 pre-existing trade barriers were removed during that period, compared with 18 in the previous period. The countries that have adopted the most measures included Russia, China, India and Indonesia ― four emerging economies that together adopted half of all measures in the 13-month period ― followed by Argentina, Egypt, the U.S., South Africa, Turkey and Thailand. Since October 2008, total trade restricting-measures have grown to 858, although 119 have been removed and others may have expired automatically, according to the report. The study also found that among all types of measures applied, border measures in imports and exports through tariff increases, new import licensing procedures, reference values, minimum transaction prices or banning trade altogether have seen the most extensive use. The number of new import measures (59) was again high and reached the level of the previous year, “confirming that countries prefer quick-fix restraints to solve their domestic competitiveness problems,” the report said. Russia applied the highest number of individual measures affecting imports. The report also noted a surge in the application of export restrictions compared with previous monitoring periods. From June 2013 to July 2014, 18 export restrictions were imposed, versus a total of 46 measures accumulated since 2008, representing an increase of 39 percent. “The intensification of such a trend is particularly alarming as all countries are globally dependent on each other’s natural resources,” the report said. “Beyond granting specific cost and access advantages to domestic players at the expense of foreign companies, such practices can have detrimental consequences for the global commodities markets, as they not only can affect or serve to regulate prices domestically but also worldwide.” The report also revealed an increased number (34) of new measures applied behind the border, such as fiscal and regulatory means or local content preferences; additional restrictions in the fields of services and investment, though at a pace comparable to previous period (14 measures); and new state-aid measures and financial schemes, some of which aim to boost exports. The report added that during the period at issue 36 trade-facilitating measures were enacted by Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and the U.S. “Protectionism damages global value chains; trade openness is what we need if we are to keep the recovery going, especially in times of global economic and political instability,” Malmström said. “As acknowledged by the Summit in Brisbane, G20 members need now to give real proof of their collective commitment to openness in trade.” Contact Grace M. Lavigne at glavigne@joc.com and follow her on Twitter: @Lavigne_JOC .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

EU says trade partners imposing trade restrictions at ‘alarming’ pace

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">From an international supply chain perspective, the plan that could hit Chinese-made and –operated ships with fees in excess of $1 million per US port call could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversy.</div>

From an international supply chain perspective, the plan that could hit Chinese-made and –operated ships with fees in excess of $1 million per US port call could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversy.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Somewhat — and maybe temporarily — sidelined amidst the current tariff maelstrom was the recent <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">announcement by the US Trade Representative (USTR) regarding Chinese-manufactured ocean vessels</a> and its proposed remedy for container lines to pay over $1 million per US port call. Given that the plan was roundly denounced <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/plan-to-tax-chinese-ships-turned-maritime-malaise-into-brainstorming-session-5971753">during recent hearings on the topic,</a> the chances are fairly good that when the final plan rolls out, perhaps later this month, it will see some significant changes. But given the Trump administration’s tariff posture and the current animosity versus China, things could easily go the other way. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5981078_0.1.jpg"></img></div>From an international supply chain perspective, the proposed charges could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversies. Three main impacts are evident: 1) increased costs resulting from the pass-through of port fees to importers, 2) consolidation of port calls and elimination of calls at secondary ports, and 3) diversion of freight to adjacent non-US ports such as Vancouver/Prince Rupert and Halifax in Canada and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Item #1 is somewhat of a no-brainer, in that the additional costs will certainly be passed along. Even though potentially significant, they stand to be a rounding error given the scope of the tariffs, assuming they remain in place. Item #2 betrays a certain lack of understanding of how things work on the part of the USTR. If the plan remains “as is,” then the bypassing of secondary ports is a near-certainty, as many of these do not have the volume to justify the additional port fee expense. However, from an intermodal perspective this does not represent a potential bonanza, as most of the resulting hauls would be relatively short-haul north-south moves for which the system is not particularly well-suited. Most likely, the moves would be long-haul drays — although the potential for transloading to feeder vessels would be another alternative. From a structural perspective, this problem would be easily solved by a change in the way the rule is written, such that only the first US port of call incurs a fee. This might be a larger number than currently envisioned, but subsequent US ports of call by the same vessel on the same voyage would not incur a fee. This would eliminate the perverting effects of the fees on the network structure. That leaves #3, the last item, which involves potential diversion of imports away from US ports of entry. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has proposed a solution that involves a border fee on containers entering the US overland from Canada and Mexico to “level out” the playing field. However, even if such a fee is not included in the revisions, it’s not clear how much volume will actually be diverted. A back-of-the-envelope analysis would be to take the fee incurred in calling at Los Angeles, for instance, and divide the fee among all the containers being discharged. But there is no such requirement for the fee to be evenly spread among all the discharged boxes. <h3>Innocent bystanders ‘caught in the crossfire’ </h3>Another approach would be for the carrier to skew the fees more towards local traffic, for which no alternative to Los Angeles exists, and to hold down the fees on the ultra-competitive inland point intermodal traffic for which abundant alternatives are available. Once the decision is made to have a port call in LA to serve the large amount of local traffic, then the fee becomes, in effect, a “sunk cost.” The discharge of additional inland volume doesn’t change the fee one cent, and even if the inland volume picks up only a small slice of the pie, it will still help reduce the overall fee per box. The same calculus applies up north. Over the last six months, about 55% of the TEUs landing in the US Pacific Northwest did not exit the region on rail. This works out to an average of about 65,000 TEUs per month. Add in the additional volume that would be generated by eliminating the call at Oakland. This would likely be enough volume to warrant a port call at Sea-Tac. Again, once that decision is made, then it makes sense to pull as much volume as possible into each call. This would incentivize carriers to price the inland volume competitively so that they can pick up at least some of the cost. None of this should be interpreted to mean that the proposed changes, even if modified in a sensible manner, won’t be hugely disruptive. The problem will be compounded by the continued uncertainty engendered by the administration’s “ready, fire, aim” approach, with subsequent rollbacks, modifications and on-the-fly changes made on short notice. This is making a near-term recession more likely by the day, as investment and planning efforts are frozen, waiting for clarity that will most likely never arrive, because a deal is never final. This will all eventually get sorted out. But in the meantime, huge damage will be done and many innocent bystanders, both in the US and overseas, will be caught in the crossfire. Contact Larry Gross at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lgross@intermodalindepth.com">lgross@intermodalindepth.com.</a></div>

Somewhat — and maybe temporarily — sidelined amidst the current tariff maelstrom was the recent announcement by the US Trade Representative (USTR) regarding Chinese-manufactured ocean vessels and its proposed remedy for container lines to pay over $1 million per US port call. Given that the plan was roundly denounced during recent hearings on the topic, the chances are fairly good that when the final plan rolls out, perhaps later this month, it will see some significant changes. But given the Trump administration’s tariff posture and the current animosity versus China, things could easily go the other way. From an international supply chain perspective, the proposed charges could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversies. Three main impacts are evident: 1) increased costs resulting from the pass-through of port fees to importers, 2) consolidation of port calls and elimination of calls at secondary ports, and 3) diversion of freight to adjacent non-US ports such as Vancouver/Prince Rupert and Halifax in Canada and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Item #1 is somewhat of a no-brainer, in that the additional costs will certainly be passed along. Even though potentially significant, they stand to be a rounding error given the scope of the tariffs, assuming they remain in place. Item #2 betrays a certain lack of understanding of how things work on the part of the USTR. If the plan remains “as is,” then the bypassing of secondary ports is a near-certainty, as many of these do not have the volume to justify the additional port fee expense. However, from an intermodal perspective this does not represent a potential bonanza, as most of the resulting hauls would be relatively short-haul north-south moves for which the system is not particularly well-suited. Most likely, the moves would be long-haul drays — although the potential for transloading to feeder vessels would be another alternative. From a structural perspective, this problem would be easily solved by a change in the way the rule is written, such that only the first US port of call incurs a fee. This might be a larger number than currently envisioned, but subsequent US ports of call by the same vessel on the same voyage would not incur a fee. This would eliminate the perverting effects of the fees on the network structure. That leaves #3, the last item, which involves potential diversion of imports away from US ports of entry. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has proposed a solution that involves a border fee on containers entering the US overland from Canada and Mexico to “level out” the playing field. However, even if such a fee is not included in the revisions, it’s not clear how much volume will actually be diverted. A back-of-the-envelope analysis would be to take the fee incurred in calling at Los Angeles, for instance, and divide the fee among all the containers being discharged. But there is no such requirement for the fee to be evenly spread among all the discharged boxes. Innocent bystanders ‘caught in the crossfire’ Another approach would be for the carrier to skew the fees more towards local traffic, for which no alternative to Los Angeles exists, and to hold down the fees on the ultra-competitive inland point intermodal traffic for which abundant alternatives are available. Once the decision is made to have a port call in LA to serve the large amount of local traffic, then the fee becomes, in effect, a “sunk cost.” The discharge of additional inland volume doesn’t change the fee one cent, and even if the inland volume picks up only a small slice of the pie, it will still help reduce the overall fee per box. The same calculus applies up north. Over the last six months, about 55% of the TEUs landing in the US Pacific Northwest did not exit the region on rail. This works out to an average of about 65,000 TEUs per month. Add in the additional volume that would be generated by eliminating the call at Oakland. This would likely be enough volume to warrant a port call at Sea-Tac. Again, once that decision is made, then it makes sense to pull as much volume as possible into each call. This would incentivize carriers to price the inland volume competitively so that they can pick up at least some of the cost. None of this should be interpreted to mean that the proposed changes, even if modified in a sensible manner, won’t be hugely disruptive. The problem will be compounded by the continued uncertainty engendered by the administration’s “ready, fire, aim” approach, with subsequent rollbacks, modifications and on-the-fly changes made on short notice. This is making a near-term recession more likely by the day, as investment and planning efforts are frozen, waiting for clarity that will most likely never arrive, because a deal is never final. This will all eventually get sorted out. But in the meantime, huge damage will be done and many innocent bystanders, both in the US and overseas, will be caught in the crossfire. Contact Larry Gross at  lgross@intermodalindepth.com.

Container lines

North American ports

Maritime

USTR port fee proposal would open a ‘second front’ in trade war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">First-quarter carrier earnings are likely to be buoyed by high rates and strong demand that has spilled over from 2024, but tariffs, slowing volume and excess capacity are darkening the outlook for the rest of the year.</div>

First-quarter carrier earnings are likely to be buoyed by high rates and strong demand that has spilled over from 2024, but tariffs, slowing volume and excess capacity are darkening the outlook for the rest of the year.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers will report a strong first quarter due to elevated rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades that were significantly higher compared with the same period last year, analysts say. But the outlook for the rest of the year has become clouded given the impact of US tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, slowing demand and rising capacity in an oversupplied container shipping market. Carriers will report their first-quarter financial results over the next few weeks, with the earnings likely to be buoyed by strong demand on the trans-Pacific and high rates on both the Asia-US and Asia-Europe trade lanes. That was evident in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-on-course-for-big-jump-in-first-quarter-net-profit-5979846">Cosco Shipping Holdings’ estimated first-quarter earnings</a> released this week that show a highly profitable result. It looks to be downhill from here, however. J.P. Morgan analysts are expecting full-year profitability guidance cuts to be made by carriers “across the board” based on a weakening demand outlook and the backdrop of US tariffs. “The high fourth-quarter 2024 freight rate will have supported a solid start of the year for EBIT [earnings before interest and taxes], but the environment has rapidly deteriorated throughout the first quarter, with the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index down 18% quarter over quarter and expected market volume growth of around 3%,” the bank’s transportation analysts wrote in a market update this week. Tariff uncertainty has already caused cargo bookings on vessels leaving Asia for the US over the next few weeks to plummet as importers place a hold on China factory orders until greater clarity emerges. Befitting the chaos that has marked the on-again, off-again nature of the tariff rollout, President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he was lowering the widely varied “reciprocal” tariffs on all countries — except China — to a 10% baseline for 90 days. And in what has become a near-daily escalation of the trade war with Beijing, Trump said he was again raising tariffs on goods imported from China, this time to 125%. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="43ce164b-7c51-4602-89a9-1ad80311460a"></dynamic-object></div>The wait-and-see approach from US importers on the eastbound trans-Pacific has as yet not caused any significant movement among various spot rate indexes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows average spot rates from China to the US West Coast at $2,886 per FEU as of Thursday, essentially flat since a general rate increase April 1. The Asia-US East Coast rate has also been flat since April 1 at $3,861/FEU. It was a weaker picture on China-North Europe where the rates have been falling since late December and are down 55% at $2,250/FEU; China-Mediterranean rates have followed a similar path, down 50% since Dec. 31 at $2,955/FEU. <h3>Recession threat looms </h3>Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy said when tariffs, demand and supply were considered, the problem was whether the world was heading into a wider recession and how that will impact the container shipping market. “The baseline outlook for world demand is for growth of around 3.2%, matching the GDP outlook, but that was from before the tariff war was launched this past week,” Murphy said. “Whether the tariff war becomes as severe as the financial crisis — when global demand fell 9% year over year — is still entirely unknown, but even if the impact was half of the financial crisis, this would tip the global supply/demand balance away from a strong 2025 peak and into overcapacity,” he added. The vessel capacity on order is now at 28% of the current fleet at 8.6 million TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Demolition data from Sea-web shows just 2,379 TEUs of capacity are set to be scrapped this year compared with more than 91,000 TEUs in 2024. Alphaliner noted in its newsletter this week that demand for all types of ships was robust amid sustained cargo volumes on various trades despite container shipping being in its traditional slack season. “In late March, not a single ship larger than 18,000 TEUs was idle, and only three vessels of the second-biggest size class — 12,500 TEUs — were commercially inactive,” Alphaliner noted. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers will report a strong first quarter due to elevated rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades that were significantly higher compared with the same period last year, analysts say. But the outlook for the rest of the year has become clouded given the impact of US tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, slowing demand and rising capacity in an oversupplied container shipping market. Carriers will report their first-quarter financial results over the next few weeks, with the earnings likely to be buoyed by strong demand on the trans-Pacific and high rates on both the Asia-US and Asia-Europe trade lanes. That was evident in Cosco Shipping Holdings’ estimated first-quarter earnings released this week that show a highly profitable result. It looks to be downhill from here, however. J.P. Morgan analysts are expecting full-year profitability guidance cuts to be made by carriers “across the board” based on a weakening demand outlook and the backdrop of US tariffs. “The high fourth-quarter 2024 freight rate will have supported a solid start of the year for EBIT [earnings before interest and taxes], but the environment has rapidly deteriorated throughout the first quarter, with the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index down 18% quarter over quarter and expected market volume growth of around 3%,” the bank’s transportation analysts wrote in a market update this week. Tariff uncertainty has already caused cargo bookings on vessels leaving Asia for the US over the next few weeks to plummet as importers place a hold on China factory orders until greater clarity emerges. Befitting the chaos that has marked the on-again, off-again nature of the tariff rollout, President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he was lowering the widely varied “reciprocal” tariffs on all countries — except China — to a 10% baseline for 90 days. And in what has become a near-daily escalation of the trade war with Beijing, Trump said he was again raising tariffs on goods imported from China, this time to 125%. The wait-and-see approach from US importers on the eastbound trans-Pacific has as yet not caused any significant movement among various spot rate indexes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows average spot rates from China to the US West Coast at $2,886 per FEU as of Thursday, essentially flat since a general rate increase April 1. The Asia-US East Coast rate has also been flat since April 1 at $3,861/FEU. It was a weaker picture on China-North Europe where the rates have been falling since late December and are down 55% at $2,250/FEU; China-Mediterranean rates have followed a similar path, down 50% since Dec. 31 at $2,955/FEU. Recession threat looms Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy said when tariffs, demand and supply were considered, the problem was whether the world was heading into a wider recession and how that will impact the container shipping market. “The baseline outlook for world demand is for growth of around 3.2%, matching the GDP outlook, but that was from before the tariff war was launched this past week,” Murphy said. “Whether the tariff war becomes as severe as the financial crisis — when global demand fell 9% year over year — is still entirely unknown, but even if the impact was half of the financial crisis, this would tip the global supply/demand balance away from a strong 2025 peak and into overcapacity,” he added. The vessel capacity on order is now at 28% of the current fleet at 8.6 million TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Demolition data from Sea-web shows just 2,379 TEUs of capacity are set to be scrapped this year compared with more than 91,000 TEUs in 2024. Alphaliner noted in its newsletter this week that demand for all types of ships was robust amid sustained cargo volumes on various trades despite container shipping being in its traditional slack season. “In late March, not a single ship larger than 18,000 TEUs was idle, and only three vessels of the second-biggest size class — 12,500 TEUs — were commercially inactive,” Alphaliner noted. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

US tariffs could help undo solid start to 2025 for ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US and Canadian regulators have used different standards to determine whether chassis made by a Vietnamese supplier ran contrary to trade regulations directed at China.</div>

US and Canadian regulators have used different standards to determine whether chassis made by a Vietnamese supplier ran contrary to trade regulations directed at China.

<div class="phx-topic">Canadian regulators have found that British Columbia-based chassis lessor Ocean Trailer did not illegally circumvent crippling antidumping and countervailing duties levied on China when it purchased equipment from a Vietnamese supplier, a preliminary decision ahead of a final ruling expected in May. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) issued its preliminary decision Wednesday, clearing Ocean Trailer of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canadian-investigation-again-raises-questions-of-chinese-chassis-origin-5874539">allegations brought by its competitor</a>, Max-Atlas Equipment International, which argued that the chassis were largely made with Chinese components and therefore should be treated as Chinese in origin. “Ocean Trailer has maintained from the beginning of this investigation we were confident that we would be absolved of any wrongdoing,” Mack Keay, Ocean Trailer’s chief operating officer, told the Journal of Commerce. “We are happy with the decision and look forward to putting this behind us, and to continue to provide high-quality container chassis to our customers.” The complaint, filed last November, had much in common with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-commerce-department-rejects-pitts-appeal-in-marine-chassis-case-5200425">US case involving CIE Manufacturing</a> and a subsidiary of Pitts Enterprises named Dorsey Intermodal in 2023. While both cases centered on Truong Hai Auto Corporation (THACO) of Vietnam, a chassis manufacturer, the US and Canadian governments reached different conclusions. In the US, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) investigation determined between 59% and 69% of the chassis components were sourced from China. The agency ruled that Pitts Enterprises failed to disclose the Chinese origin of key subcomponents and that THACO had not substantially transformed them in Vietnam. As a result, the chassis were deemed to originate in China and were subject to duties. CBSA reached a different conclusion following an on-site inspection of THACO’s facilities in Vietnam last month. Canadian investigators found THACO’s manufacturing “is not done using parts or components that are in ‘major portion’ from China,” and that the assembly, blasting, coating, painting and welding in Vietnam constitutes a significant transformation to a final chassis. The conclusion was Ocean Trailer did not violate any regulations and so the chassis were not subject to duties. Keay said Ocean Trailer did “due diligence” before partnering with THACO. <h3>Canadian ruling could impact US chassis manufacturers </h3>Ripple waves of the preliminary ruling, once finalized, could spread to the US. Pitts Enterprises lost an appeal and was expelled from the coalition of US chassis manufacturers that had lobbied for the duties in 2020. A new coalition was formed with the remaining members, Cheetah Chassis and Stoughton Trailers, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-chassis-manufacturers-targeting-makers-in-mexico-thailand-and-vietnam-5952748">filed a new case in February</a> to expand the crippling duties to Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam. The new coalition singled out the material injury that THACO’s operations in Vietnam allegedly cause US manufacturing. Canada was not one of the countries singled out in the ongoing US case. If Cheetah and Stoughton are successful when a preliminary decision is issued this summer, then it would deal a serious blow to importers such as CIE Manufacturing and Hyundai Translead. If trade barriers between the US and Canada were to ease while punitive duties were assessed on CIE and Hyundai Translead, then Max Atlas and Ocean Trailer could emerge as a competitive northern supplier to American truckers, logistics companies and cargo owners seeking to increase supply chain resiliency. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Canadian regulators have found that British Columbia-based chassis lessor Ocean Trailer did not illegally circumvent crippling antidumping and countervailing duties levied on China when it purchased equipment from a Vietnamese supplier, a preliminary decision ahead of a final ruling expected in May. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) issued its preliminary decision Wednesday, clearing Ocean Trailer of allegations brought by its competitor , Max-Atlas Equipment International, which argued that the chassis were largely made with Chinese components and therefore should be treated as Chinese in origin. “Ocean Trailer has maintained from the beginning of this investigation we were confident that we would be absolved of any wrongdoing,” Mack Keay, Ocean Trailer’s chief operating officer, told the Journal of Commerce. “We are happy with the decision and look forward to putting this behind us, and to continue to provide high-quality container chassis to our customers.” The complaint, filed last November, had much in common with a US case involving CIE Manufacturing and a subsidiary of Pitts Enterprises named Dorsey Intermodal in 2023. While both cases centered on Truong Hai Auto Corporation (THACO) of Vietnam, a chassis manufacturer, the US and Canadian governments reached different conclusions. In the US, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) investigation determined between 59% and 69% of the chassis components were sourced from China. The agency ruled that Pitts Enterprises failed to disclose the Chinese origin of key subcomponents and that THACO had not substantially transformed them in Vietnam. As a result, the chassis were deemed to originate in China and were subject to duties. CBSA reached a different conclusion following an on-site inspection of THACO’s facilities in Vietnam last month. Canadian investigators found THACO’s manufacturing “is not done using parts or components that are in ‘major portion’ from China,” and that the assembly, blasting, coating, painting and welding in Vietnam constitutes a significant transformation to a final chassis. The conclusion was Ocean Trailer did not violate any regulations and so the chassis were not subject to duties. Keay said Ocean Trailer did “due diligence” before partnering with THACO. Canadian ruling could impact US chassis manufacturers Ripple waves of the preliminary ruling, once finalized, could spread to the US. Pitts Enterprises lost an appeal and was expelled from the coalition of US chassis manufacturers that had lobbied for the duties in 2020. A new coalition was formed with the remaining members, Cheetah Chassis and Stoughton Trailers, which filed a new case in February to expand the crippling duties to Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam. The new coalition singled out the material injury that THACO’s operations in Vietnam allegedly cause US manufacturing. Canada was not one of the countries singled out in the ongoing US case. If Cheetah and Stoughton are successful when a preliminary decision is issued this summer, then it would deal a serious blow to importers such as CIE Manufacturing and Hyundai Translead. If trade barriers between the US and Canada were to ease while punitive duties were assessed on CIE and Hyundai Translead, then Max Atlas and Ocean Trailer could emerge as a competitive northern supplier to American truckers, logistics companies and cargo owners seeking to increase supply chain resiliency. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Canadian regulators find Vietnamese chassis didn’t circumvent China duties

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A full evaluation of on-time performance will not be possible until July once the transition to the new deep-sea services has been completed, but data for February and March is positive for the Maersk/Hapag-Lloyd alliance.</div>

A full evaluation of on-time performance will not be possible until July once the transition to the new deep-sea services has been completed, but data for February and March is positive for the Maersk/Hapag-Lloyd alliance.

<div class="phx-topic">The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd is close to delivering on its public promise of 90%-plus schedule reliability since launching Feb. 1, eclipsing the on-time performance of rival alliances and standalone Mediterranean Shipping Co., analysts say. While ocean visibility provider eeSea and Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis both emphasized that a full evaluation of schedule reliability will not be possible until July once a full rotation of deep-sea services has been completed, the data for February and March has Gemini firmly in front. “Both Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have been cautioning that it will take several months before the network is fully in place, but they’re off to a good start at 86% for Q1,” eeSea CEO Simon Sundboell said in a market update this week. “You would expect as much, though, as the network starts off with a blank slate and all vessel positions at zero as they start out on their respective new services,” he added. The field for second-best is crowded, according to eeSea data. Premier Alliance, renamed from THE Alliance after Hapag-Lloyd’s departure and launched in February, recorded on-time performance in the first quarter of 31%, while Ocean Alliance, the only unchanged carrier grouping, was at 25%. MSC, which left the 2M Alliance to operate as a standalone carrier in February, recorded on-time performance of 22%. Non-alliance services are at 30% schedule reliability on east-west services, including the Middle East trades, according to eeSea. Gemini’s network is structured around a hub-and-spoke approach compared with the direct port-to-port services that MSC and the other alliances offer. When fully rolled out, there will be 28 shuttle services operating under the Gemini model, a factor that has raised concerns among shippers that have a historic dislike of transshipment. But the initial data is encouraging. <h3>Almost all shuttle services hitting 100% </h3>Sea-Intelligence analyzed the performance of the 15 Gemini shuttle services that had arrivals for February, with 10 deployed in Asia, two in Europe and three in the Indian subcontinent/Middle East. The overall schedule reliability for the services was 98.4% in February and all except two services in Asia had 100% schedule reliability. “While we do not yet have a complete rollout of shuttle services, we do have a substantial number of vessel arrivals covered, which is why we can say that these scores are somewhat representative of the general schedule reliability performance of the Gemini shuttle services,” Sea-Intelligence noted in its latest Sunday Spotlight newsletter. That the Gemini services were performing with such high reliability was not unexpected, according to Lars Mikael Jensen, head of hubs at Maersk-owned APM Terminals. “This is not something that we worked out around the coffee machine on a Friday afternoon,” Jensen told customers during a recent briefing on the new services. “This has been ongoing work for five years and in the prototypes, we could see that this would work.” Jensen said fewer port calls meant fewer delays, with the hubs in Gemini’s modular network serving as junction points and the shuttles providing the spokes to destination ports. “Essentially, the shuttles are ferries that go back and forth between hubs and destinations and by covering those ports we don’t call direct anymore with the shuttles, we can isolate any problems when they appear and not impact the rest of the service,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd is close to delivering on its public promise of 90%-plus schedule reliability since launching Feb. 1, eclipsing the on-time performance of rival alliances and standalone Mediterranean Shipping Co., analysts say. While ocean visibility provider eeSea and Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis both emphasized that a full evaluation of schedule reliability will not be possible until July once a full rotation of deep-sea services has been completed, the data for February and March has Gemini firmly in front. “Both Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have been cautioning that it will take several months before the network is fully in place, but they’re off to a good start at 86% for Q1,” eeSea CEO Simon Sundboell said in a market update this week. “You would expect as much, though, as the network starts off with a blank slate and all vessel positions at zero as they start out on their respective new services,” he added. The field for second-best is crowded, according to eeSea data. Premier Alliance, renamed from THE Alliance after Hapag-Lloyd’s departure and launched in February, recorded on-time performance in the first quarter of 31%, while Ocean Alliance, the only unchanged carrier grouping, was at 25%. MSC, which left the 2M Alliance to operate as a standalone carrier in February, recorded on-time performance of 22%. Non-alliance services are at 30% schedule reliability on east-west services, including the Middle East trades, according to eeSea. Gemini’s network is structured around a hub-and-spoke approach compared with the direct port-to-port services that MSC and the other alliances offer. When fully rolled out, there will be 28 shuttle services operating under the Gemini model, a factor that has raised concerns among shippers that have a historic dislike of transshipment. But the initial data is encouraging. Almost all shuttle services hitting 100% Sea-Intelligence analyzed the performance of the 15 Gemini shuttle services that had arrivals for February, with 10 deployed in Asia, two in Europe and three in the Indian subcontinent/Middle East. The overall schedule reliability for the services was 98.4% in February and all except two services in Asia had 100% schedule reliability. “While we do not yet have a complete rollout of shuttle services, we do have a substantial number of vessel arrivals covered, which is why we can say that these scores are somewhat representative of the general schedule reliability performance of the Gemini shuttle services,” Sea-Intelligence noted in its latest Sunday Spotlight newsletter. That the Gemini services were performing with such high reliability was not unexpected, according to Lars Mikael Jensen, head of hubs at Maersk-owned APM Terminals. “This is not something that we worked out around the coffee machine on a Friday afternoon,” Jensen told customers during a recent briefing on the new services. “This has been ongoing work for five years and in the prototypes, we could see that this would work.” Jensen said fewer port calls meant fewer delays, with the hubs in Gemini’s modular network serving as junction points and the shuttles providing the spokes to destination ports. “Essentially, the shuttles are ferries that go back and forth between hubs and destinations and by covering those ports we don’t call direct anymore with the shuttles, we can isolate any problems when they appear and not impact the rest of the service,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Port News

International ports

Gemini Cooperation holds early lead on ocean service reliability: analysts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The executive order signed Wednesday falls short of providing any details on the proposed port fee plan but directs stricter collection of existing harbor maintenance fees.</div>

The executive order signed Wednesday falls short of providing any details on the proposed port fee plan but directs stricter collection of existing harbor maintenance fees.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration on Wednesday took additional steps toward its plans to grow the US maritime industry with an executive order calling for an increase in domestic defense shipbuilding and attracting more US seafarers. Intermodal shippers will also face new charges for routing cargo through Canada and Mexico ports as Trump targets what he alleges is cargo diversion to avoid such fees.The order, though, did not mention the administration’s proposed port fees on Chinese ships that are also expected to underwrite those efforts. The order signed by President Donald Trump, called a “Maritime Action Plan,” calls for various cabinet officials to undertake efforts to build up domestic shipbuilding capacity and increase the US’ international maritime presence in regions such as the Arctic. The order includes pledges to expand the US Merchant Marine Academy in New York and increase job opportunities for seafarers by growing the US-flag fleet. Those efforts will include the Secretary of Defense reviewing how to increase naval shipbuilding. Trump also wants to develop “Maritime Prosperity Zones” to draw investment to waterfront communities. The proposal is modeled after the “Opportunity Zones” that were included in Trump’s 2017 tax plan offering incentives for investments in distressed communities. The order will also establish a Maritime Security Trust fund that aims to underwrite the various plans. There was no indication how it would be funded, but Trump’s order calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to strictly enforce collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) — the 0.125% charge assessed on seaborne cargo coming through the US — and “other charges on foreign cargo entering the United States to prevent circumvention via Canada or Mexico.” The order also calls for assessing the HMF on any ocean cargo going through Canada and Mexico, plus a 10% service fee for US Customs processing. Trump said in a separate statement that cargo gets diverted through those ports to avoid the HMF. “This will put an end to a longstanding unfair practice, ensuring all cargoes entering the United States are assessed the proper applicable fees and generating additional revenue for investment into the maritime industry,” the White House statement said. While the executive order also directed the US Trade Representative (USTR) to make recommendations on how to combat China’s dominance of the maritime industry, it fell short of adding further details on the proposed fees that would be charged to Chinese-built or -operated ships that enter US ports. The administration appears to be further refining its approach on the controversial fees. USTR Jamieson Greer, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, tried to downplay <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">the headline-grabbing fees of up to $1.5 million</a>, saying he’s adjusting the proposal so <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ustrs-china-tonnage-tax-would-squeeze-smaller-trades-stakeholders-5967638">they won’t make US exports uncompetitive</a>. “The USTR’s proposed actions are just those,” Greer said. “They are not all going to be implemented, they are not all going to be stacked. The president will look very carefully to make sure we have the right amount of time and the right incentives to create shipbuilding here without impacting our commodity exports.”Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Trump administration on Wednesday took additional steps toward its plans to grow the US maritime industry with an executive order calling for an increase in domestic defense shipbuilding and attracting more US seafarers. Intermodal shippers will also face new charges for routing cargo through Canada and Mexico ports as Trump targets what he alleges is cargo diversion to avoid such fees. The order, though, did not mention the administration’s proposed port fees on Chinese ships that are also expected to underwrite those efforts. The order signed by President Donald Trump, called a “Maritime Action Plan,” calls for various cabinet officials to undertake efforts to build up domestic shipbuilding capacity and increase the US’ international maritime presence in regions such as the Arctic. The order includes pledges to expand the US Merchant Marine Academy in New York and increase job opportunities for seafarers by growing the US-flag fleet. Those efforts will include the Secretary of Defense reviewing how to increase naval shipbuilding. Trump also wants to develop “Maritime Prosperity Zones” to draw investment to waterfront communities. The proposal is modeled after the “Opportunity Zones” that were included in Trump’s 2017 tax plan offering incentives for investments in distressed communities. The order will also establish a Maritime Security Trust fund that aims to underwrite the various plans. There was no indication how it would be funded, but Trump’s order calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to strictly enforce collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) — the 0.125% charge assessed on seaborne cargo coming through the US — and “other charges on foreign cargo entering the United States to prevent circumvention via Canada or Mexico.” The order also calls for assessing the HMF on any ocean cargo going through Canada and Mexico, plus a 10% service fee for US Customs processing. Trump said in a separate statement that cargo gets diverted through those ports to avoid the HMF. “This will put an end to a longstanding unfair practice, ensuring all cargoes entering the United States are assessed the proper applicable fees and generating additional revenue for investment into the maritime industry,” the White House statement said. While the executive order also directed the US Trade Representative (USTR) to make recommendations on how to combat China’s dominance of the maritime industry, it fell short of adding further details on the proposed fees that would be charged to Chinese-built or -operated ships that enter US ports. The administration appears to be further refining its approach on the controversial fees. USTR Jamieson Greer, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, tried to downplay the headline-grabbing fees of up to $1.5 million , saying he’s adjusting the proposal so they won’t make US exports uncompetitive . “The USTR’s proposed actions are just those,” Greer said. “They are not all going to be implemented, they are not all going to be stacked. The president will look very carefully to make sure we have the right amount of time and the right incentives to create shipbuilding here without impacting our commodity exports.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trump signs order for US shipbuilding, but stays mute on port fees

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

Attend Inland25

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

More News & Analysis

USTR port fee proposal would open a ‘second front’ in trade war

US tariffs could help undo solid start to 2025 for ocean carriers

Canadian regulators find Vietnamese chassis didn’t circumvent China duties