A broad coalition of importers' associations, exporters, farmers, and logistics and port operators sent to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who heads the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), a letter asking for suspension port charges, the start of which is postponed by approximately one year, of the port charges provided for by the action under Section 301 against China's practices in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding ( of 18 April 2025). The USTR, which on 6 November 2025, on the recommendation of the President Donald Trump, had proposed to suspend for one year, at starting from 10 November 2025, this measure, and last 26 October proposed a further suspension of the measure from 10 November 2026 to 9 January 2027 in order to continue negotiations with the China.

The hundreds of associations that signed the letter have asked to go beyond the two-month extension and to cancel tariffs, highlighting that their application from January 2027 would be added to an already under pressure, characterised by high sea freight costs, Road transport, warehousing and insurance, capacity of evolving carriers, difficulty in finding equipment and constraints of ports and internal networks. In addition, they have noted that, since ships built in China represent a significant share of the carriers' overall capacity, The effects would not be limited to a few operators: the costs would be would propagate along the networks, would affect the choices of use of ships and would increase uncertainty for companies that have little ability to control ownership, management, or construction history of the ships used for their goods.

The signatories also expressed concern about the provisions of Annex III of the Ro-Ro Ship Act, which extend beyond China to hit carriers of allied countries. For importers, the suspension would avoid new surcharges transport that increase landing costs and push up the prices of consumer goods, components and raw materials. For exporters, including agricultural and manufacturing producers, would preserve access to foreign markets and reduce the risk of retaliation.

Finally, the letter notes that the suspension, in in force for almost a year, has shown that the tariffs on the ships are not a strategy to rebuild shipbuilding American Army. In fact, the problems underlying the Chinese dominance: limited domestic production capacity, shortage of labor and lack of competitive alternatives. We need - conclude the signatories - a dedicated strategy, investments and a long-term commitment of the public and private sectors, without a port tax on Chinese ships purchased years ago.

Among the logistics operators, the World Shipping Council (WSC), which brings together carriers operating container ships and vessels ro-ro, highlighted that the reintroduction of tariffs would make rising freight costs for American importers and exporters, would penalize agribusiness in particular, because many U.S. agricultural products have tight margins and compete with fungible products from other countries, and would result, for the consumers, in what the association defines as a "regressive national sales tax". For the WSC, in fact, the tariffs on the ships already built or ordered shall in no way reduce the dependence on Chinese shipbuilding, and hit those who had placed an order at a Chinese shipyard before start-up of the survey penalizes past business choices without help eliminate the case that is the subject of the action.

In addition, the WSC also noted that the reintroduction of the could expose US exporters and shipping to retaliatory or reciprocal measures, to the detriment of the same objective of strengthening the national maritime sector.

The WSC also called for the full revocation of Annex III, denouncing that the tariffs provided for apply to all car carriers built abroad, and not only those built in China or owned or operated by Chinese entities, with the exception of participating in the U.S. Maritime Security Program. For this - according to the association - Annex III is unrelated to the purpose of Section 301, leaves intact the benefit of compared to those of third countries, and would only increase costs for exporters and consumers Americans.