Government
Also speaking at TPM25, Pete Mento, director of customs at forwarder DSV, said Trump’ s threat of an across-the-board 10 % tariff on all imports is also hanging over the heads of importers.
“ That would run roughshod on inflation,” Mento said.
‘ Far beyond reciprocal’
Trump implemented the country-specific tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act( IEEPA), which gives US presidents executive authority over parts of the economy due to a national emergency. Typically used to impose financial penalties on criminal and terrorist groups, IEEPA has only been used once before for tariffs, by President Richard Nixon in 1971.
Roberts said the IEEPA tariffs, which are being justified to stem flows of illegal drugs and migrants into the US, offer the most latitude for new carveouts and exemptions because they are over negotiable issues.
However, steel and aluminum tariffs, which were imposed under national security provisions of US trade law, are more likely to last due to Trump’ s policy of building up US manufacturing and national defense capacity.
Another tariff wildcard will come in April when the Trump administration is scheduled to release a wide- ranging report on what it sees as unfair practices of US trading partners. The report is expected to address how the US could enact“ reciprocal” tariffs against countries based on the tariffs they charge US exports.
That would upend the practice of most import duties being assessed based on the type of goods, not the country of origin. DSV’ s Mento said the additional line items for country-specific goods will balloon the number of possible import classifications in the US tariff schedule. The retaliatory measures that China, Canada and the European Union enacted in response to Trump’ s trade measures further risk spiraling reciprocal tariffs upward.
“ Trump said he’ s going to put a 25 % tariff on Japanese and European cars, but that’ s far beyond reciprocal,” Mento said.“ So now I’ m worried that reciprocal tariffs will be far higher than imagined and more punitive.”
The tariff escalations put further risk on importers who use a customs bond to release cargo prior to paying actual import duties, Roberts said. The increasing size of tariffs means importers will have to post additional bonds, raising their financial costs and increasing their credit risk.
“ This increase in duty will diminish your profit margin,” Roberts said.“ If your financials don’ t look as good, you will have a harder time qualifying for credit.”
On top of the tariffs, shippers now need to know the makeup of the fleet carrying their imports due to a proposed port tax on Chinese ocean carriers and Chinese-built ships. The proposal calls for fees of about $ 1 million per port call based on a mix of factors including the ship’ s country of ownership, the number of newbuilds the carrier has at Chinese shipyards and the cargo capacity of the ships.
“ If you have a vessel, you could be responsible to pay the fee for bringing in the ship, plus being a Chinese firm, for having a majority of Chinese-built ships, plus a majority of Chinese-built ships in the order process,” Roberts said.“ You could be looking at a $ 4 million to $ 5 million hit just for coming into the US.”
email: michael. angell @ spglobal. com
“ We have to take decisions on decarbonizing our fleet over the next 20, 25 or 30 years, and we believe that the direction that we have chosen remains valid,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during the carrier’ s annual results presentation on March 20.“ That means trying to reduce our emissions significantly until 2030 and also to stick to our target to be net carbon neutral by 2045.”
No deal not an option tilialucida / Shutterstock. com
member states to finalize the legal framework around a fuel standard and economic measure with implementation planned for October. If the measures do not roll out in October, it will place the IMO’ s interim emissions reduction targets at risk.
Ocean carriers are watching the MEPC deliberations closely— many have had to invest huge sums in dualfuel ships able to run on cleaner energy despite the lack of regulations to narrow the gap between fossil fuels and the alternatives.
www. joc. com
Andy Wibroe, lead regulatory specialist at classification society Lloyd’ s Register, said in an MEPC update that one of the main issues to be resolved in April is how shipowners and operators will pay for GHG emissions from their ships on a well-to-wake basis.
Funds coming from whatever carbon-charging measure is agreed upon are essential to support the development and scale up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Another crucial point is the support for developing countries and remote island states through the energy transition in shipping.
Wibroe noted a division between two camps— those who believe in a technical measure built around a fuel standard that generates revenue from under-compliant ships
April 7, 2025 | Journal of Commerce 33