<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The National Association of Waterfront Employers has sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking for continued support of the $3 billion Clean Ports Program.</div>

The National Association of Waterfront Employers has sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking for continued support of the $3 billion Clean Ports Program.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US ports are worried that potential cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2026 budget will make it more difficult to phase out diesel-powered yard equipment and are urging Congress to maintain grant programs meant to reduce carbon emissions from their operations. The National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday asking for continued support of the Clean Ports Program, a $3 billion grant program funded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. NAWE President Carl Bentzel said in the letter the grants help US ports invest in newer, more efficient yard equipment and allow them to handle more volumes in limited space. “Ports are facing increasing demand and growing global competition while trying to operate with aging cargo-handling equipment, limited funding for capital improvement, and limitations on space for capital expansion,” Bentzel said. He added that US manufacturers benefit from more investments in clean ports projects, furthering the Trump administration’s agenda of boosting domestic industries. “Many of the Clean Port projects are reliant on US manufacturing of cargo handling equipment,” Bentzel wrote. “This equipment is not only driving a vital US manufacturing sector but will be a foundational industry for the revitalization of the US maritime industrial base.” <h3>EPA faces cuts </h3>The letter arrives as Congress takes up spending proposals that will likely include steep cuts to the EPA, which administers the Clean Ports Program. In May, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a $4.2 billion budget for his agency for the next fiscal year, about half of what it received for 2025. House Republicans are working on a bill that would provide about $7 billion for the EPA, a 23% cut from 2025 spending. The Clean Ports Program awarded 54 grants in 2024. Almost all of the program’s grant funding went toward zero-emission port equipment, with a smaller portion funding other initiatives such as developing plans to reduce emissions. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ports-plan-upgrades-to-electric-yard-equipment-after-securing-epa-grants-5782145">received the largest single grant</a>, $451 million, to replace diesel-powered yard equipment. The Port of Los Angeles received the second-largest award at $411 million. The long lead times for ordering and purchasing new yard equipment mean the grant monies have only trickled out. Of the $2.9 billion in grant awards, about $417,000 has been spent so far, according to USASpending.gov. Although there has not been any push for a rescission of the awards, which are already obligated by Congress, NAWE’s letter said the grant funding should “be spent as expeditiously as possible so that these important projects can move forward and have the intended impact on making the supply chain more efficient and safer.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US ports are worried that potential cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2026 budget will make it more difficult to phase out diesel-powered yard equipment and are urging Congress to maintain grant programs meant to reduce carbon emissions from their operations. The National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday asking for continued support of the Clean Ports Program, a $3 billion grant program funded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. NAWE President Carl Bentzel said in the letter the grants help US ports invest in newer, more efficient yard equipment and allow them to handle more volumes in limited space. “Ports are facing increasing demand and growing global competition while trying to operate with aging cargo-handling equipment, limited funding for capital improvement, and limitations on space for capital expansion,” Bentzel said. He added that US manufacturers benefit from more investments in clean ports projects, furthering the Trump administration’s agenda of boosting domestic industries. “Many of the Clean Port projects are reliant on US manufacturing of cargo handling equipment,” Bentzel wrote. “This equipment is not only driving a vital US manufacturing sector but will be a foundational industry for the revitalization of the US maritime industrial base.” EPA faces cuts The letter arrives as Congress takes up spending proposals that will likely include steep cuts to the EPA, which administers the Clean Ports Program. In May, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a $4.2 billion budget for his agency for the next fiscal year, about half of what it received for 2025. House Republicans are working on a bill that would provide about $7 billion for the EPA, a 23% cut from 2025 spending. The Clean Ports Program awarded 54 grants in 2024. Almost all of the program’s grant funding went toward zero-emission port equipment, with a smaller portion funding other initiatives such as developing plans to reduce emissions. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey received the largest single grant , $451 million, to replace diesel-powered yard equipment. The Port of Los Angeles received the second-largest award at $411 million. The long lead times for ordering and purchasing new yard equipment mean the grant monies have only trickled out. Of the $2.9 billion in grant awards, about $417,000 has been spent so far, according to USASpending.gov. Although there has not been any push for a rescission of the awards, which are already obligated by Congress, NAWE’s letter said the grant funding should “be spent as expeditiously as possible so that these important projects can move forward and have the intended impact on making the supply chain more efficient and safer.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maritime

North American ports

Port News

Ports fear emissions grants under threat amid EPA budget slashing

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A strong midterm global outlook for wind farm development could be dampened by a lack of forward ship capacity to service the buildouts.</div>

A strong midterm global outlook for wind farm development could be dampened by a lack of forward ship capacity to service the buildouts.

<div class="phx-topic">A looming shortage of vessels used for the development of offshore wind farms could delay projects even as global installed power capacity is forecast to surge 60% to 133 gigawatts (GW) by 2033 as markets develop, especially in Asia and Latin America, analysts say. The vessel capacity crunch will be exacerbated by a lack of new ships entering service and the shift to larger and heavier wind project components including turbines, blades and foundations, the analysts said. The coming vessel shortage is part of wider supply chain issues that threaten to derail offshore wind energy projects, they added. Highlighting the issue, Yvan Gelbart, lead analyst at Paris-headquartered maritime consultant Spinergie, told the Journal of Commerce that constrained supply of heavy-lift vessels could reduce the installation of bottom-fixed offshore wind turbines to about 112 GW, excluding China. He explained wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs) handle foundation and turbine installations and undertake maintenance, so limited availability will create bottlenecks. “We project an average heavy-lift vessel capacity shortfall of roughly 10% between 2025 and 2030, peaking in 2029 and 2030, and continuing in the 2030s,” Gelbart said. He pointed out that most newbuild WTIVs were ordered in the early 2020s and there are now no new vessels on order for delivery from 2028. Spinergie is also not expecting any WTIV vessel orders to be placed with shipyards this year. “But heavy-lift vessel owners are cautious about investing in newbuilds,” Gelbart said. “Their strategy is aimed at avoiding oversupply, keeping day rates high, and avoiding high costs when financing newbuilds. Given the current financial context, this is not an ideal time for heavy investment in new vessels, though we may see increased ordering activity from 2026 onwards.” “As appetite for next generation turbines remains high, installation bottlenecks will intensify unless shipowners commit to newbuilds,” he added. This comes as the existing fleet is already under pressure — especially for ships able to install turbines of more than 15 MW — with vessel utilizations levels of 70% to 80% over the past four years. “This means this fleet is constantly working with little room to spare,” Gelbart said. “And with turbine sizes continuing to trend higher, this pressure will only increase.” <h3>Undersupply warning beginning 2028 </h3>Other specialists echoed Gelbart’s views, including Denmark’s Cadeler, owner of the world’s largest fleet of jack-up offshore wind installation vessels, which said there’s a significant reduction in the availability of vessels as turbines become bigger. “Undersupply [of vessels] will become particularly visible from 2028,” Cadeler CEO Mikkel Gleerup said during a first-quarter results presentation in May. “We also believe a lot of supply that is currently mapped as supplying the industry will in the coming years be gradually phased out because it will become much, much harder for them to compete efficiently in the industry,” Gleerup said. He added that these potentially obsolete vessels are currently operating in both foundation and wind turbine generator installation. That reflects the growing size and weight of offshore wind turbines that have trended upward from 9.5 MW machines with a tip height of 530 feet in 2020 to 26 MW and a height of 1,000 feet last year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Each turbine is expected to increase in power to 35 MW and be 1,150 feet tall by 2030. Norway’s Rystad Energy forecasts a shortage of up to 10 ships capable of installing wind turbines of more than 10 MW in 2029, increasing to 20 in 2030, with the shortfall particularly acute in larger-capacity ships able to install turbines of more than 14 MW. Echoing this view, Gelbart said that while developers increasingly prefer larger turbines, “fewer than 20 vessels out of 85, including those due for delivery by 2028, currently have the capacity to install these larger turbines in the 18 MW and above segment, narrowing the effective fleet considerably.” Potential vessel shortages are just one supply chain challenge facing the offshore wind industry, according to GWEC. Others include a lack of port and dock facilities, lack of equipment standardization, delays in offshore and onshore grid development, and a lack of transmission infrastructure, according to panelists at a GWEC webinar on July 9. “Strengthening the supply chain is super critical,” Paul Trevillion, Singapore-based global director of renewables at French testing and inspection company Bureau Veritas, said during the webinar. <h3>Strong global outlook despite regional blips </h3>The midterm outlook for offshore wind development to about 2034 remains strong despite recent headwinds that include rising inflation, the pandemic-fueled recession, failed offshore development auctions and supply chain constraints, Zhou Feng, GWEC’s chief research officer, said during the webinar. While China and Europe are set to maintain their dominant position in offshore wind installation capacity, GWEC highlighted the growing importance of other countries and regions, especially Asia and Latin America. In Asia, 215 GW of offshore wind capacity is forecast to be added in the 10 years ending 2034, according to GWEC’s global offshore wind report published June 25. Mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines will become the top five markets for the installation of new capacity, the report said. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) has identified 50 fixed and floating offshore wind development sites as the country targets 10 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and up to 45 GW by 2040. By comparison, Japan had just 253 MW of installed offshore wind capacity at the end of last year. South Korea is aiming for 14 GW of installed capacity by 2030, up from zero now, with 3.2 GW targeted from up to 10 wind farms in the South Jeolla province of the country’s southwest, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy announced in April. The growing importance of these two countries was echoed by Cadeler’s Gleerup, who pointed out there is record-high tender activity in South Korea and Japan, while Australia is concluding its first auctions for new offshore wind projects. Vietnam and the Philippines are also markets set to take off, with sites totaling 65 GW recently awarded by the Philippines energy department, according to GWEC, which is advising countries on the development and auction process. In Latin America, GWEC highlighted Brazil and Colombia as key markets, with 103 projects totaling 244 GW seeking the environmental greenlight in Brazil and 69 areas being considered by Colombia’s mines and energy ministry for offshore wind development, the GWEC report said. Gleerup said despite projects in the US and Europe being delayed or stopped, globally “offshore wind is going from record to record.” “We are seeing stronger and stronger levels of projects being auctioned,” the Cadeler CEO said. “We are seeing more projects coming online.” Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

A looming shortage of vessels used for the development of offshore wind farms could delay projects even as global installed power capacity is forecast to surge 60% to 133 gigawatts (GW) by 2033 as markets develop, especially in Asia and Latin America, analysts say. The vessel capacity crunch will be exacerbated by a lack of new ships entering service and the shift to larger and heavier wind project components including turbines, blades and foundations, the analysts said. The coming vessel shortage is part of wider supply chain issues that threaten to derail offshore wind energy projects, they added. Highlighting the issue, Yvan Gelbart, lead analyst at Paris-headquartered maritime consultant Spinergie, told the Journal of Commerce that constrained supply of heavy-lift vessels could reduce the installation of bottom-fixed offshore wind turbines to about 112 GW, excluding China. He explained wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs) handle foundation and turbine installations and undertake maintenance, so limited availability will create bottlenecks. “We project an average heavy-lift vessel capacity shortfall of roughly 10% between 2025 and 2030, peaking in 2029 and 2030, and continuing in the 2030s,” Gelbart said. He pointed out that most newbuild WTIVs were ordered in the early 2020s and there are now no new vessels on order for delivery from 2028. Spinergie is also not expecting any WTIV vessel orders to be placed with shipyards this year. “But heavy-lift vessel owners are cautious about investing in newbuilds,” Gelbart said. “Their strategy is aimed at avoiding oversupply, keeping day rates high, and avoiding high costs when financing newbuilds. Given the current financial context, this is not an ideal time for heavy investment in new vessels, though we may see increased ordering activity from 2026 onwards.” “As appetite for next generation turbines remains high, installation bottlenecks will intensify unless shipowners commit to newbuilds,” he added. This comes as the existing fleet is already under pressure — especially for ships able to install turbines of more than 15 MW — with vessel utilizations levels of 70% to 80% over the past four years. “This means this fleet is constantly working with little room to spare,” Gelbart said. “And with turbine sizes continuing to trend higher, this pressure will only increase.” Undersupply warning beginning 2028 Other specialists echoed Gelbart’s views, including Denmark’s Cadeler, owner of the world’s largest fleet of jack-up offshore wind installation vessels, which said there’s a significant reduction in the availability of vessels as turbines become bigger. “Undersupply [of vessels] will become particularly visible from 2028,” Cadeler CEO Mikkel Gleerup said during a first-quarter results presentation in May. “We also believe a lot of supply that is currently mapped as supplying the industry will in the coming years be gradually phased out because it will become much, much harder for them to compete efficiently in the industry,” Gleerup said. He added that these potentially obsolete vessels are currently operating in both foundation and wind turbine generator installation. That reflects the growing size and weight of offshore wind turbines that have trended upward from 9.5 MW machines with a tip height of 530 feet in 2020 to 26 MW and a height of 1,000 feet last year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Each turbine is expected to increase in power to 35 MW and be 1,150 feet tall by 2030. Norway’s Rystad Energy forecasts a shortage of up to 10 ships capable of installing wind turbines of more than 10 MW in 2029, increasing to 20 in 2030, with the shortfall particularly acute in larger-capacity ships able to install turbines of more than 14 MW. Echoing this view, Gelbart said that while developers increasingly prefer larger turbines, “fewer than 20 vessels out of 85, including those due for delivery by 2028, currently have the capacity to install these larger turbines in the 18 MW and above segment, narrowing the effective fleet considerably.” Potential vessel shortages are just one supply chain challenge facing the offshore wind industry, according to GWEC. Others include a lack of port and dock facilities, lack of equipment standardization, delays in offshore and onshore grid development, and a lack of transmission infrastructure, according to panelists at a GWEC webinar on July 9. “Strengthening the supply chain is super critical,” Paul Trevillion, Singapore-based global director of renewables at French testing and inspection company Bureau Veritas, said during the webinar. Strong global outlook despite regional blips The midterm outlook for offshore wind development to about 2034 remains strong despite recent headwinds that include rising inflation, the pandemic-fueled recession, failed offshore development auctions and supply chain constraints, Zhou Feng, GWEC’s chief research officer, said during the webinar. While China and Europe are set to maintain their dominant position in offshore wind installation capacity, GWEC highlighted the growing importance of other countries and regions, especially Asia and Latin America. In Asia, 215 GW of offshore wind capacity is forecast to be added in the 10 years ending 2034, according to GWEC’s global offshore wind report published June 25. Mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines will become the top five markets for the installation of new capacity, the report said. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) has identified 50 fixed and floating offshore wind development sites as the country targets 10 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and up to 45 GW by 2040. By comparison, Japan had just 253 MW of installed offshore wind capacity at the end of last year. South Korea is aiming for 14 GW of installed capacity by 2030, up from zero now, with 3.2 GW targeted from up to 10 wind farms in the South Jeolla province of the country’s southwest, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy announced in April. The growing importance of these two countries was echoed by Cadeler’s Gleerup, who pointed out there is record-high tender activity in South Korea and Japan, while Australia is concluding its first auctions for new offshore wind projects. Vietnam and the Philippines are also markets set to take off, with sites totaling 65 GW recently awarded by the Philippines energy department, according to GWEC, which is advising countries on the development and auction process. In Latin America, GWEC highlighted Brazil and Colombia as key markets, with 103 projects totaling 244 GW seeking the environmental greenlight in Brazil and 69 areas being considered by Colombia’s mines and energy ministry for offshore wind development, the GWEC report said. Gleerup said despite projects in the US and Europe being delayed or stopped, globally “offshore wind is going from record to record.” “We are seeing stronger and stronger levels of projects being auctioned,” the Cadeler CEO said. “We are seeing more projects coming online.” Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Tightening vessel supply threatens to delay offshore wind projects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container volumes handled by North Europe’s busiest port continue to grow, alongside the now critical need for more landside capacity. </div>

Container volumes handled by North Europe’s busiest port continue to grow, alongside the now critical need for more landside capacity.

<div class="phx-topic">Marine terminals in Antwerp-Bruges are under “heavy strain,” with strong container volume in the first half of the year exacerbating congestion from a shortage of landside space that is already at critically low levels, the Belgian hub port said Tuesday. First-half volume at Europe’s busiest container port increased 3.7% year over year to 6.91 million TEUs, driven by a continued surge in overall trade with the US that increased 17.2% to 16.4 million tons. “Our consistently strong trade relationship with the United States confirms our role as a trans-Atlantic gateway to Europe,” Jacques Vandermeiren, CEO of the Port of Antwerp-Bruges, said in a statement. “At the same time, current capacity pressures and operational challenges highlight the need for additional container infrastructure,” he added. “With the ECA [extra container capacity Antwerp] project, we are focused on building for the future so that we can continue to support sustainable growth.” The lack of space is just one of a daunting series of factors contributing to port congestion in the Belgian port — and to bottlenecks at several other hubs in North Europe — that were outlined by Antwerp-Bruges in its first-half operational update. “Container ship arrivals remain irregular due to disruptions dating back to the COVID crisis, further exacerbated by rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the Red Sea,” the port’s statement noted. “The recent reshuffling of container alliances has temporarily led to simultaneous vessel calls and high cargo volumes,” it added. “Poor schedule reliability is complicating terminal planning: containers remain on site longer, and vessels are arriving with increasingly large loads.” The series of factors has driven up average dwell times to between seven and eight days compared with the usual five days, Antwerp noted, adding that overcrowded terminals required additional container movements, placing extra strain on personnel and equipment. With the port already under severe operational pressure, recent industrial action by national unions has added to the cargo-handling challenges. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel handling to a standstill, while another national “day of action” was held on June 25. Strong peak season demand is another factor that is piling pressure on congested terminals in North Europe and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-adjust-calls-as-congestion-chokes-european-hubs-6037668">forcing carriers to divert some services</a> away from congested import gateways. There are also significant delays in Asia that impact the schedule reliability of carriers arriving in Europe, with bottlenecks in the key transshipment hub of Singapore. Port visibility data from Portcast on July 13 shows 35 container vessels were waiting to berth. <h3>Tariffs bring uncertainty to trans-Atlantic </h3>A standout trade lane for Antwerp is the trans-Atlantic, where traffic with the US has continued its first-quarter growth through the first half, although the impact of tariffs hangs over the corridor. “The outlook for the second half of 2025 remains uncertain,” the Antwerp-Bruges statement noted. “Much will depend on a potential trade agreement between the EU and the US by Aug. 1, which could restore greater certainty and predictability in the supply chain.” But the likelihood of a US-EU trade deal appears to be diminishing. President Donald Trump sent a letter to Brussels this week threatening to impose 30% blanket tariffs on European imports beginning Aug. 1, surprising EU officials who thought they were close to a preliminary agreement with the US. In response, Brussels is now readying a fresh list of American products to hit with retaliatory tariffs if a trade deal isn’t reached by the deadline. One of the sectors hardest hit by the US trade war is automotives. Vehicle exports via Antwerp to the US have seen a clear decline in the first half as tariffs dragged down the numbers. In the first six months of the year, 15.9% fewer new passenger cars and vans (76,089 units) and 31.5% fewer trucks and heavy vehicles (11,751 units) were exported, according to the port. Antwerp data shows European first-half imports from the US increased 13.1% year over year to 9.7 million tons, with higher volumes in containers and liquid bulk. Exports to the US rose 23.5% to 6.7 million tons, driven mainly by fuels and dry bulk. Antwerp container exports to the US remained stable at 303,000 TEUs, while container imports rose 12.6%. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Marine terminals in Antwerp-Bruges are under “heavy strain,” with strong container volume in the first half of the year exacerbating congestion from a shortage of landside space that is already at critically low levels, the Belgian hub port said Tuesday. First-half volume at Europe’s busiest container port increased 3.7% year over year to 6.91 million TEUs, driven by a continued surge in overall trade with the US that increased 17.2% to 16.4 million tons. “Our consistently strong trade relationship with the United States confirms our role as a trans-Atlantic gateway to Europe,” Jacques Vandermeiren, CEO of the Port of Antwerp-Bruges, said in a statement. “At the same time, current capacity pressures and operational challenges highlight the need for additional container infrastructure,” he added. “With the ECA [extra container capacity Antwerp] project, we are focused on building for the future so that we can continue to support sustainable growth.” The lack of space is just one of a daunting series of factors contributing to port congestion in the Belgian port — and to bottlenecks at several other hubs in North Europe — that were outlined by Antwerp-Bruges in its first-half operational update. “Container ship arrivals remain irregular due to disruptions dating back to the COVID crisis, further exacerbated by rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the Red Sea,” the port’s statement noted. “The recent reshuffling of container alliances has temporarily led to simultaneous vessel calls and high cargo volumes,” it added. “Poor schedule reliability is complicating terminal planning: containers remain on site longer, and vessels are arriving with increasingly large loads.” The series of factors has driven up average dwell times to between seven and eight days compared with the usual five days, Antwerp noted, adding that overcrowded terminals required additional container movements, placing extra strain on personnel and equipment. With the port already under severe operational pressure, recent industrial action by national unions has added to the cargo-handling challenges. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel handling to a standstill, while another national “day of action” was held on June 25. Strong peak season demand is another factor that is piling pressure on congested terminals in North Europe and forcing carriers to divert some services away from congested import gateways. There are also significant delays in Asia that impact the schedule reliability of carriers arriving in Europe, with bottlenecks in the key transshipment hub of Singapore. Port visibility data from Portcast on July 13 shows 35 container vessels were waiting to berth. Tariffs bring uncertainty to trans-Atlantic A standout trade lane for Antwerp is the trans-Atlantic, where traffic with the US has continued its first-quarter growth through the first half, although the impact of tariffs hangs over the corridor. “The outlook for the second half of 2025 remains uncertain,” the Antwerp-Bruges statement noted. “Much will depend on a potential trade agreement between the EU and the US by Aug. 1, which could restore greater certainty and predictability in the supply chain.” But the likelihood of a US-EU trade deal appears to be diminishing. President Donald Trump sent a letter to Brussels this week threatening to impose 30% blanket tariffs on European imports beginning Aug. 1, surprising EU officials who thought they were close to a preliminary agreement with the US. In response, Brussels is now readying a fresh list of American products to hit with retaliatory tariffs if a trade deal isn’t reached by the deadline. One of the sectors hardest hit by the US trade war is automotives. Vehicle exports via Antwerp to the US have seen a clear decline in the first half as tariffs dragged down the numbers. In the first six months of the year, 15.9% fewer new passenger cars and vans (76,089 units) and 31.5% fewer trucks and heavy vehicles (11,751 units) were exported, according to the port. Antwerp data shows European first-half imports from the US increased 13.1% year over year to 9.7 million tons, with higher volumes in containers and liquid bulk. Exports to the US rose 23.5% to 6.7 million tons, driven mainly by fuels and dry bulk. Antwerp container exports to the US remained stable at 303,000 TEUs, while container imports rose 12.6%. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Trans-Atlantic

International ports

Strong H1 volumes, space crunch keep Antwerp terminals under pressure

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.</div>

The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.

<div class="phx-topic">Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deutsche-bank-to-sell-maher-terminals-at-port-of-ny-nj-5230328">which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund</a>, is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ssa-marine-looks-to-expand-into-new-us-ports-with-deal-for-ceres-5221078">MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies</a>, Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. <h3>Rising maintenance costs </h3>Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022</a>. However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers</a>. Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “<a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2023/12/08/tiny-shipworms-ravaging-wood-pilings-of-nj-ny-wharves-port-authority-newark-bay/71813583007/">toothpick</a>,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund , is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies , Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. Rising maintenance costs Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022 . However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers . Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “ toothpick ,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston. </div>

The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston said it was reviewing the FMC order, adding that it was “confident that all agreements and practices at Port Houston are conducted in a fair, transparent and lawful manner and in alignment with FMC regulations and industry best practices.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston said it was reviewing the FMC order, adding that it was “confident that all agreements and practices at Port Houston are conducted in a fair, transparent and lawful manner and in alignment with FMC regulations and industry best practices.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Container lines

FMC probing service agreements between Port Houston, ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region. </div>

The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/import-surge-pushing-los-angeles-outbound-spot-truck-rates-higher-5724894">second consecutive year</a> that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. <h3>BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks </h3>BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-lines-cutting-trans-pacific-capacity-overhang-6040426">declined steadily</a> since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the second consecutive year that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have declined steadily since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Rail News

Surface

J.B. Hunt hits some shippers with big surcharges in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption.</div>

Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption.

<div class="phx-topic">A recent annual shipping industry event revealed increased attention from the C-suite on tariff and risk mitigation and how far we’ve come in addressing those items, as well as the need for more sophisticated sourcing strategies. At the American Association of Exporters and Importers’ (AAEI) annual conference in late June, I witnessed a noticeable shift in terms of a new focus on mitigating trade-related costs and vulnerabilities. This expanded the scope of the Washington, D.C. event that traditionally centers around compliance, facilitation and influencing policy change. Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption. The first session set the tone, with panel moderator Laura Siegel Rabinowitz of Greenberg Traurig LLP, opening with a telling observation: “Companies today are now looking for sourcing strategies involving classification, valuation, and country of origin.” As a trade optimization strategist, I was all smiles. While current tariff rates have certainly put risk planning back into the spotlight, the movement can arguably be traced to the COVID-19 pandemic when many companies found themselves critically exposed by single-sourcing components. When combined with the unprecedented blockage of the Suez Canal, risk mitigation lights began burning in earnest. But to support the sourcing strategies being raised, companies may need to rethink existing workflows, procedures and tools that would enable trade compliance to work proactively with procurement. The process begins with the corporate buyers/engineering teams sending a list of new products/components to trade compliance for classification. The resulting harmonized system (HS) codes illuminate tariff obligations, identify eligibility for potential Free Trade Agreement (FTA) benefits, and provide visibility to any admissibility requirements that would need to be satisfied as a condition of import. In addition, by involving trade compliance at the earliest stages of new product build/buy decisions, it promotes the potential discovery of tariff engineering opportunities capable of producing surprising savings. <h3>The ‘risk index’ and due diligence </h3>With tariff data in hand, procurement departments can move beyond surface-level quotes based on product cost alone and conduct a more accurate landed cost analysis across pre-qualified suppliers. I’ve personally witnessed examples where purchase orders were awarded to suppliers in China based solely on a lower cost of goods, versus Mexico which qualified for FTA, had lower transportation costs, and provided shorter door-to-door delivery times. Landed-cost modeling tools allow companies to perform a more accurate “apples-to-apples" comparison by factoring all the costs associated with the door-to-door movement of an international order. They also support dynamic scenario planning by allowing the user to toggle different Incoterms, shipping modes and related transport costs to find the best balance of costs and operational needs. This step also needs to include a key element of strategic sourcing that is often overlooked, and that is understanding a country’s “risk index” — that is, how it scores against a variety of factors, all capable of adding unplanned costs and/or disruption. These include geo-political stability, crime and corruption, complexity and cost of trade, infrastructure reliability (labor, energy), environmental and social governance (ESG), and natural disasters and climate risk. The final step is due diligence via supplier vetting. Remaining suppliers should be screened through tools that can trace raw materials back to their sources, ensuring compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and similar controls. This traceability is critical — not just for ethical sourcing, but also for maintaining customs compliance and brand reputation. With this three-step process, corporate procurement departments gain a complete, comprehensive view that balances cost, compliance, risk and continuity, with data that can be shared with other stakeholders as part of a broader, collaborative effort. When implemented as corporate policy, it ensures that a purchase order cannot be awarded without completing this analysis. In short, it just simply makes sense. While tariffs might be the current disruptor headline, the broader truth is that supply chain risk lurks in many corners — be it political unrest, environmental disasters, cyberattacks, and even regulatory whiplash. These risks and other potential disruptions have always been part-and-parcel of international trade. However, the current issue is putting trade compliance departments in the boardroom spotlight, providing an opportune time to lobby for those badly needed resources, systems and process changes. Or, as one event panelist who aptly quoted Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” William G. “Jerry” Peck is a licensed customs broker and trade compliance and optimization specialist with Avalara and can be reached at <a href="mailto:jerry.peck@avalara.com">jerry.peck@avalara.com</a>. </div>

A recent annual shipping industry event revealed increased attention from the C-suite on tariff and risk mitigation and how far we’ve come in addressing those items, as well as the need for more sophisticated sourcing strategies. At the American Association of Exporters and Importers’ (AAEI) annual conference in late June, I witnessed a noticeable shift in terms of a new focus on mitigating trade-related costs and vulnerabilities. This expanded the scope of the Washington, D.C. event that traditionally centers around compliance, facilitation and influencing policy change. Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption. The first session set the tone, with panel moderator Laura Siegel Rabinowitz of Greenberg Traurig LLP, opening with a telling observation: “Companies today are now looking for sourcing strategies involving classification, valuation, and country of origin.” As a trade optimization strategist, I was all smiles. While current tariff rates have certainly put risk planning back into the spotlight, the movement can arguably be traced to the COVID-19 pandemic when many companies found themselves critically exposed by single-sourcing components. When combined with the unprecedented blockage of the Suez Canal, risk mitigation lights began burning in earnest. But to support the sourcing strategies being raised, companies may need to rethink existing workflows, procedures and tools that would enable trade compliance to work proactively with procurement. The process begins with the corporate buyers/engineering teams sending a list of new products/components to trade compliance for classification. The resulting harmonized system (HS) codes illuminate tariff obligations, identify eligibility for potential Free Trade Agreement (FTA) benefits, and provide visibility to any admissibility requirements that would need to be satisfied as a condition of import. In addition, by involving trade compliance at the earliest stages of new product build/buy decisions, it promotes the potential discovery of tariff engineering opportunities capable of producing surprising savings. The ‘risk index’ and due diligence With tariff data in hand, procurement departments can move beyond surface-level quotes based on product cost alone and conduct a more accurate landed cost analysis across pre-qualified suppliers. I’ve personally witnessed examples where purchase orders were awarded to suppliers in China based solely on a lower cost of goods, versus Mexico which qualified for FTA, had lower transportation costs, and provided shorter door-to-door delivery times. Landed-cost modeling tools allow companies to perform a more accurate “apples-to-apples" comparison by factoring all the costs associated with the door-to-door movement of an international order. They also support dynamic scenario planning by allowing the user to toggle different Incoterms, shipping modes and related transport costs to find the best balance of costs and operational needs. This step also needs to include a key element of strategic sourcing that is often overlooked, and that is understanding a country’s “risk index” — that is, how it scores against a variety of factors, all capable of adding unplanned costs and/or disruption. These include geo-political stability, crime and corruption, complexity and cost of trade, infrastructure reliability (labor, energy), environmental and social governance (ESG), and natural disasters and climate risk. The final step is due diligence via supplier vetting. Remaining suppliers should be screened through tools that can trace raw materials back to their sources, ensuring compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and similar controls. This traceability is critical — not just for ethical sourcing, but also for maintaining customs compliance and brand reputation. With this three-step process, corporate procurement departments gain a complete, comprehensive view that balances cost, compliance, risk and continuity, with data that can be shared with other stakeholders as part of a broader, collaborative effort. When implemented as corporate policy, it ensures that a purchase order cannot be awarded without completing this analysis. In short, it just simply makes sense. While tariffs might be the current disruptor headline, the broader truth is that supply chain risk lurks in many corners — be it political unrest, environmental disasters, cyberattacks, and even regulatory whiplash. These risks and other potential disruptions have always been part-and-parcel of international trade. However, the current issue is putting trade compliance departments in the boardroom spotlight, providing an opportune time to lobby for those badly needed resources, systems and process changes. Or, as one event panelist who aptly quoted Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” William G. “Jerry” Peck is a licensed customs broker and trade compliance and optimization specialist with Avalara and can be reached at jerry.peck@avalara.com .

Supply chain

Latest market ‘disruptor’ requires focused procurement approach by C-suites

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The win for the trucking company at the Texas Supreme Court sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes.</div>

The win for the trucking company at the Texas Supreme Court sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers operating private trucking fleets will be buoyed by a June 27 decision by the Supreme Court of Texas, which overturned a nearly $100 million 2023 jury verdict in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake. The court held that the trucking company’s driver, although possibly negligent in how he operated his vehicle on icy roads, was not the proximate cause of a tragic cross-median crash that killed one child and left another permanently paralyzed. The case holds implications for truckload carriers, from large for-hire carriers such as Werner to smaller operators, but also for shippers operating their own private fleets who will be impacted by the precedent set by the court’s decision. That makes it more than merely a procedural victory for Werner Enterprises. It sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes. <h3>Boundaries for shippers </h3>For private fleet operators and shippers with dedicated transportation assets, the implications are significant — and potentially transformative. The ruling offers clarity and potentially limits exposure in high-dollar catastrophic loss cases — particularly those involving third-party drivers who are the true proximate causes of an accident. Previously, plaintiffs’ attorneys have advanced theories of negligent training, hiring, or dispatch to hook employers into liability, even where their driver was not principally at fault. But the Werner decision sharply limits those derivative theories unless the employee’s conduct itself meets the substantial-factor threshold of proximate cause. This limitation matters in an era of rising “nuclear verdicts,” so-called liability verdicts that exceed $10 million, and increasingly aggressive plaintiff strategies in transportation litigation. It restores a degree of predictability to fleet liability by anchoring it in clearly demonstrable causation. <h3>The legal crux: proximate cause </h3>The court’s opinion turned on a technical yet crucial doctrine: proximate cause. Texas law requires that to hold someone liable for negligence, their actions must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury — not just part of a chain of events. The accident occurred in December 2014, near Odessa, Texas, when an F-350 pickup truck, traveling too fast for the icy conditions, lost control, crossed a 42-foot grassy median, and collided head-on with a Werner 18-wheeler operated by Shiraz Ali, a driver in training. The collision killed seven-year-old Zackery Blake and severely injured his siblings and mother. A Texas jury found Werner and Ali liable, apportioning 70% of the responsibility to Werner and 14% of the responsibility to Ali and awarding $100 million in damages. Werner appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ali’s driving was a proximate cause of the crash. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that his conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries. The sole proximate cause, according to the opinion, was the F-350’s sudden loss of control. Crucially, the court emphasized that even if Ali’s speed “furnished the condition that made the injuries possible,” it was not enough for liability. The decision pivots on the idea that legal responsibility requires more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. <h3>Victory for the principle of foreseeability </h3>The ruling clarifies a principle that private fleet operators have long sought courts to recognize: when another driver acts unpredictably and causes an accident, it is unfair — and legally unsound — to hold a fleet operator liable simply because their truck happened to be involved. The decision rebukes the lower court’s expansive view of foreseeability. While a collision might have been possible, the court held, it was not reasonably foreseeable that an out-of-control vehicle would cross a wide median and strike Ali’s truck before he had time to react. It was “a tragic happenstance of place and time,” the opinion declared, “but not a happenstance for which Ali or his employer can reasonably be held responsible.” <h3>A word of caution </h3>While this ruling is a win for carriers and shippers, it also underscores the importance of robust documentation and clear protocols. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted that Werner’s training may have been imperfect. But because the crash wasn’t proximately caused by that training — or by Ali’s conduct — it didn’t matter. Private fleets should take note: This ruling doesn’t absolve companies from preparing their drivers for adverse conditions or documenting compliance with safety protocols. But it does provide a legal firewall when accidents occur beyond their control. Matthew Leffler is a transportation attorney, adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, and the host of the Armchair Attorney® Podcast. Contact him at <a href="mailto:matthew@armchairattorney.com">matthew@armchairattorney.com</a>.</div>

Shippers operating private trucking fleets will be buoyed by a June 27 decision by the Supreme Court of Texas, which overturned a nearly $100 million 2023 jury verdict in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake. The court held that the trucking company’s driver, although possibly negligent in how he operated his vehicle on icy roads, was not the proximate cause of a tragic cross-median crash that killed one child and left another permanently paralyzed. The case holds implications for truckload carriers, from large for-hire carriers such as Werner to smaller operators, but also for shippers operating their own private fleets who will be impacted by the precedent set by the court’s decision. That makes it more than merely a procedural victory for Werner Enterprises. It sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes. Boundaries for shippers For private fleet operators and shippers with dedicated transportation assets, the implications are significant — and potentially transformative. The ruling offers clarity and potentially limits exposure in high-dollar catastrophic loss cases — particularly those involving third-party drivers who are the true proximate causes of an accident. Previously, plaintiffs’ attorneys have advanced theories of negligent training, hiring, or dispatch to hook employers into liability, even where their driver was not principally at fault. But the Werner decision sharply limits those derivative theories unless the employee’s conduct itself meets the substantial-factor threshold of proximate cause. This limitation matters in an era of rising “nuclear verdicts,” so-called liability verdicts that exceed $10 million, and increasingly aggressive plaintiff strategies in transportation litigation. It restores a degree of predictability to fleet liability by anchoring it in clearly demonstrable causation. The legal crux: proximate cause The court’s opinion turned on a technical yet crucial doctrine: proximate cause. Texas law requires that to hold someone liable for negligence, their actions must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury — not just part of a chain of events. The accident occurred in December 2014, near Odessa, Texas, when an F-350 pickup truck, traveling too fast for the icy conditions, lost control, crossed a 42-foot grassy median, and collided head-on with a Werner 18-wheeler operated by Shiraz Ali, a driver in training. The collision killed seven-year-old Zackery Blake and severely injured his siblings and mother. A Texas jury found Werner and Ali liable, apportioning 70% of the responsibility to Werner and 14% of the responsibility to Ali and awarding $100 million in damages. Werner appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ali’s driving was a proximate cause of the crash. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that his conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries. The sole proximate cause, according to the opinion, was the F-350’s sudden loss of control. Crucially, the court emphasized that even if Ali’s speed “furnished the condition that made the injuries possible,” it was not enough for liability. The decision pivots on the idea that legal responsibility requires more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Victory for the principle of foreseeability The ruling clarifies a principle that private fleet operators have long sought courts to recognize: when another driver acts unpredictably and causes an accident, it is unfair — and legally unsound — to hold a fleet operator liable simply because their truck happened to be involved. The decision rebukes the lower court’s expansive view of foreseeability. While a collision might have been possible, the court held, it was not reasonably foreseeable that an out-of-control vehicle would cross a wide median and strike Ali’s truck before he had time to react. It was “a tragic happenstance of place and time,” the opinion declared, “but not a happenstance for which Ali or his employer can reasonably be held responsible.” A word of caution While this ruling is a win for carriers and shippers, it also underscores the importance of robust documentation and clear protocols. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted that Werner’s training may have been imperfect. But because the crash wasn’t proximately caused by that training — or by Ali’s conduct — it didn’t matter. Private fleets should take note: This ruling doesn’t absolve companies from preparing their drivers for adverse conditions or documenting compliance with safety protocols. But it does provide a legal firewall when accidents occur beyond their control. Matthew Leffler is a transportation attorney, adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, and the host of the Armchair Attorney® Podcast. Contact him at matthew@armchairattorney.com .

Truckload

Werner victory in long-running court case has broad implications for truckload carriers

Notes: Average rail performance represents years 2017 to 2019 and 2023.

Average rail performance

Average rail performance: {valueY.formatNumber('#.##')}

Pandemic-era congestion (2020-2022)

Pandemic congestion: {valueY.formatNumber('#.##')}

Current Year

Current year: {valueY.formatNumber('#.##')}

Intermodal train cars holding refers to how many trains with containers or trailers are stopped outside of a designated terminal or crew change point due to a disruption to normal operations. The total in the chart is the rolling four-week average total of the US-based Class I railroads: BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific Railroad. Average rail performance is defined as the weekly performance prior to and after the pandemic-related freight surge. Pandemic-era congestion is the worst result for each week from 2020 through 2022. [STB](https://www.stb.gov/reports-data/rail-service-data/)

US intermodal trains held (STB)

US intermodal train holdings Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The gathering will be closely watched by ocean carriers, shippers and container terminal operators in the US and Europe for signs that global unions are developing a coordinated cross-border “solidarity strike” strategy.</div>

The gathering will be closely watched by ocean carriers, shippers and container terminal operators in the US and Europe for signs that global unions are developing a coordinated cross-border “solidarity strike” strategy.

<div class="phx-topic">Dockworker trade unions from around the world will come together in Lisbon on Nov. 5 to confront “the threat of automation” facing ports and workers in the maritime industry. Described as “a call to action,” the gathering will be closely watched by ocean carriers, shippers and container terminal operators in the US and Europe for signs that global unions are developing a coordinated cross-border capability. Organized by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and coordinated by the International Dockworkers Council (IDC), the “People Over Profit: Anti-Automation Conference” will examine the future of labor in the maritime and port sector. “The event will bring together trade unions from around the world to confront the threat of automation driven by economic interests that prioritize profit over human employment,” the IDC said in a statement Friday. “This conference represents a unique opportunity to strengthen the defense of decent jobs, occupational safety and collective rights at a decisive moment for the future of maritime and port labor,” it added. The conference intends to develop a shared roadmap and a strategic plan to halt “the unregulated advance of these technological processes,” the IDC said. Coordinated cross-border “solidarity strikes” have yet to be seen among dockworker unions. Dutch union FNV Havens in February called on workers in terminals around Europe to refuse to handle ships diverted from Rotterdam’s Hutchison Ports’ Delta II terminal in solidarity with its striking dockers, but there were no reports of ships being refused service. <h3>Lightning rod for strike action </h3>Global container terminal operators have been accelerating moves to automate operations using fast-developing AI and 5G technology to handle increasing volumes of cargo while also facing a shortage of labor. Port automation and new technology have become a lightning rod for union action in the US. Last October, the ILA led <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-usmx-agree-on-new-wage-offer-and-contract-extension-that-reopens-ports-5741882">a three-day strike at terminals across the US East and Gulf coasts</a> over wages and concerns around automation. The following month, talks between the ILA and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on a new master contract broke down again due to the union’s concerns about <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-targets-rail-mounted-gantry-cranes-amid-impasse-in-port-labor-talks-5874742">the use of semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs)</a> at marine terminals. ILA President Harold Daggett said in a separate statement about the Lisbon conference that he was “proud to see this alliance of maritime workers come together in solidarity and strength.” “The automation agenda is creeping into every corner of our economy, from transportation to retail to logistics, and it threatens not only our jobs but the very fabric of our communities,” Daggett said. Automation is not as much of a hot button issue in Europe. Several ports are implementing different levels of automation, from semi- to fully automated terminals deploying automated guided vehicles, automated stacking cranes and remotely operated ship-to-shore cranes. Europe’s busiest container port of Antwerp-Bruges is investing heavily in automation, and while this was raising concerns with dockworker unions, Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at the port, said deploying the technology was about being competitive. “If I need eight people on a gang to do a job, then I do some automation I can do the job with four,” Arnouts said. “But you still need to put the eight men there so four will be sitting here in the corner, earning their money but not doing anything. “We feel that discussions [over automation] have become more mature with the unions understanding that keeping the eight people there will, in the end, lead to zero people working at that spot,” he added. Arnouts said there was a widespread shortage of labor “all over the place,” which would offset the loss of jobs caused by automation. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Dockworker trade unions from around the world will come together in Lisbon on Nov. 5 to confront “the threat of automation” facing ports and workers in the maritime industry. Described as “a call to action,” the gathering will be closely watched by ocean carriers, shippers and container terminal operators in the US and Europe for signs that global unions are developing a coordinated cross-border capability. Organized by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and coordinated by the International Dockworkers Council (IDC), the “People Over Profit: Anti-Automation Conference” will examine the future of labor in the maritime and port sector. “The event will bring together trade unions from around the world to confront the threat of automation driven by economic interests that prioritize profit over human employment,” the IDC said in a statement Friday. “This conference represents a unique opportunity to strengthen the defense of decent jobs, occupational safety and collective rights at a decisive moment for the future of maritime and port labor,” it added. The conference intends to develop a shared roadmap and a strategic plan to halt “the unregulated advance of these technological processes,” the IDC said. Coordinated cross-border “solidarity strikes” have yet to be seen among dockworker unions. Dutch union FNV Havens in February called on workers in terminals around Europe to refuse to handle ships diverted from Rotterdam’s Hutchison Ports’ Delta II terminal in solidarity with its striking dockers, but there were no reports of ships being refused service. Lightning rod for strike action Global container terminal operators have been accelerating moves to automate operations using fast-developing AI and 5G technology to handle increasing volumes of cargo while also facing a shortage of labor. Port automation and new technology have become a lightning rod for union action in the US. Last October, the ILA led a three-day strike at terminals across the US East and Gulf coasts over wages and concerns around automation. The following month, talks between the ILA and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on a new master contract broke down again due to the union’s concerns about the use of semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) at marine terminals. ILA President Harold Daggett said in a separate statement about the Lisbon conference that he was “proud to see this alliance of maritime workers come together in solidarity and strength.” “The automation agenda is creeping into every corner of our economy, from transportation to retail to logistics, and it threatens not only our jobs but the very fabric of our communities,” Daggett said. Automation is not as much of a hot button issue in Europe. Several ports are implementing different levels of automation, from semi- to fully automated terminals deploying automated guided vehicles, automated stacking cranes and remotely operated ship-to-shore cranes. Europe’s busiest container port of Antwerp-Bruges is investing heavily in automation, and while this was raising concerns with dockworker unions, Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at the port, said deploying the technology was about being competitive. “If I need eight people on a gang to do a job, then I do some automation I can do the job with four,” Arnouts said. “But you still need to put the eight men there so four will be sitting here in the corner, earning their money but not doing anything. “We feel that discussions [over automation] have become more mature with the unions understanding that keeping the eight people there will, in the end, lead to zero people working at that spot,” he added. Arnouts said there was a widespread shortage of labor “all over the place,” which would offset the loss of jobs caused by automation. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Longshore labor

Global dockworker unions plan Lisbon gathering for anti-automation ‘call to action’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The uncertainty centers on what the White House considers transshipment and how US Customs and Border Protection officials would regulate goods moving from China to the US via Vietnam.</div>

The uncertainty centers on what the White House considers transshipment and how US Customs and Border Protection officials would regulate goods moving from China to the US via Vietnam.

<div class="phx-topic">How the Trump administration defines and regulates transshipment in the aftermath of a proposed trade deal with Vietnam will have major implications for the top Asia sourcing alternative to China. While President Donald Trump’s announcement on July 2 clarified new tariff levels of 20% on imports from Vietnam, his statements on applying a 40% tariff on goods that originate in China but are transshipped via Vietnam have confused some in the US trade community. The uncertainty centers on what Trump considers transshipment and how US Customs officials would crack down on violations. At issue is the extent to which goods with a Vietnam country of origin designation are actually just disguised China-origin goods. Most importers define transshipment as the process of a container connecting from the port of origin to the port of destination via a third port. But the Trump administration appears to be attaching a trade compliance element to transshipment that draws considerations such as country-of-origin determination, minimum local content, and substantial transformation, trade experts told the Journal of Commerce. “On the face of it, the transshipment tariff makes no sense,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of Southern California-based forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics, noting that the 40% rate is still lower than US tariffs of 55% on imports sent directly from China. “Which is why I think the language in the announcement is referring to something else.” <h3>Minimum input requirement </h3>One possibility is that the administration will deem that a minimum requirement of inputs into the shipped goods must come from Vietnam, said Paul Diedrich, compliance officer at Virginia-based forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “While this hasn’t been clearly defined, it would make logical sense,” he said. The White House, the US Trade Representative (USTR), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have yet to clarify how they define transshipment. Even CBP officials are struggling to understand what the new approach means for their monitoring and inspections and await text of the agreement rather than just the announced framework, said a trade compliance officer at a major forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We don’t know if there’s going to be a regional content component,” the source said. “Let’s say 100% of the product is manufactured in Vietnam, but 100% of the components come from China. Is that going to qualify for the agreement? In the framework, they’ve agreed to the level of the tariff, but not to the content. The short answer is no one has a clue how this is going to turn out.” <h3>Tariff games </h3>The source said it’s clear that the intention of the proposed deal with Vietnam is to disincentivize goods being manufactured in China and then moved across the land border to Vietnam to get a lower tariff treatment. It may end up being less costly to source in China and pay higher tariffs depending on the freight rate differential from China. “The framework adds scrutiny for goods with ambiguous or Chinese-origin inputs that most brands wouldn’t have visibility into without access to a product network connecting them with suppliers, regulators and customers,” Amy Morgan, head of trade compliance at supply chain software provider Altana AI, wrote in a blog Monday about the Vietnam tariffs. “Brands relying on Vietnam as a final assembly point for Chinese-made components may face 40% duties if they can’t substantiate that Vietnam is the country of origin.” Khachatryan said he expects the 40% tariff would apply to “Chinese components that undergo a substantial transformation and would hitherto be treated as Vietnamese-origin imports. “This is also evidenced by a sudden increase in export inspections in Vietnam where Vietnamese customs are reportedly scrutinizing ‘Made in Vietnam’ claims,” he added. How much of this transshipment is behind the rise of US imports from Vietnam is unclear. But the direction of trade, reflecting the conventional thinking that Vietnam was generally the best hedge against dependence on China sourcing, is clear. Imports from Vietnam a decade ago accounted for 3.9% of all US oceangoing laden imports; it was 9.9% in 2024, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. On Monday, Trump made a similar threat against South Korea, warning that Chinese goods “transshipped” through South Korea would be subject to additional tariffs beyond the 25% level announced this week. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

How the Trump administration defines and regulates transshipment in the aftermath of a proposed trade deal with Vietnam will have major implications for the top Asia sourcing alternative to China. While President Donald Trump’s announcement on July 2 clarified new tariff levels of 20% on imports from Vietnam, his statements on applying a 40% tariff on goods that originate in China but are transshipped via Vietnam have confused some in the US trade community. The uncertainty centers on what Trump considers transshipment and how US Customs officials would crack down on violations. At issue is the extent to which goods with a Vietnam country of origin designation are actually just disguised China-origin goods. Most importers define transshipment as the process of a container connecting from the port of origin to the port of destination via a third port. But the Trump administration appears to be attaching a trade compliance element to transshipment that draws considerations such as country-of-origin determination, minimum local content, and substantial transformation, trade experts told the Journal of Commerce. “On the face of it, the transshipment tariff makes no sense,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of Southern California-based forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics, noting that the 40% rate is still lower than US tariffs of 55% on imports sent directly from China. “Which is why I think the language in the announcement is referring to something else.” Minimum input requirement One possibility is that the administration will deem that a minimum requirement of inputs into the shipped goods must come from Vietnam, said Paul Diedrich, compliance officer at Virginia-based forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “While this hasn’t been clearly defined, it would make logical sense,” he said. The White House, the US Trade Representative (USTR), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have yet to clarify how they define transshipment. Even CBP officials are struggling to understand what the new approach means for their monitoring and inspections and await text of the agreement rather than just the announced framework, said a trade compliance officer at a major forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We don’t know if there’s going to be a regional content component,” the source said. “Let’s say 100% of the product is manufactured in Vietnam, but 100% of the components come from China. Is that going to qualify for the agreement? In the framework, they’ve agreed to the level of the tariff, but not to the content. The short answer is no one has a clue how this is going to turn out.” Tariff games The source said it’s clear that the intention of the proposed deal with Vietnam is to disincentivize goods being manufactured in China and then moved across the land border to Vietnam to get a lower tariff treatment. It may end up being less costly to source in China and pay higher tariffs depending on the freight rate differential from China. “The framework adds scrutiny for goods with ambiguous or Chinese-origin inputs that most brands wouldn’t have visibility into without access to a product network connecting them with suppliers, regulators and customers,” Amy Morgan, head of trade compliance at supply chain software provider Altana AI, wrote in a blog Monday about the Vietnam tariffs. “Brands relying on Vietnam as a final assembly point for Chinese-made components may face 40% duties if they can’t substantiate that Vietnam is the country of origin.” Khachatryan said he expects the 40% tariff would apply to “Chinese components that undergo a substantial transformation and would hitherto be treated as Vietnamese-origin imports. “This is also evidenced by a sudden increase in export inspections in Vietnam where Vietnamese customs are reportedly scrutinizing ‘Made in Vietnam’ claims,” he added. How much of this transshipment is behind the rise of US imports from Vietnam is unclear. But the direction of trade, reflecting the conventional thinking that Vietnam was generally the best hedge against dependence on China sourcing, is clear. Imports from Vietnam a decade ago accounted for 3.9% of all US oceangoing laden imports; it was 9.9% in 2024, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. On Monday, Trump made a similar threat against South Korea, warning that Chinese goods “transshipped” through South Korea would be subject to additional tariffs beyond the 25% level announced this week. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Trump’s Vietnam ‘transshipment’ tariff puzzles US trade community

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With two attacks on commercial vessels in recent days, including one that killed three mariners, any thought that the risk in the Red Sea was easing to the point the Suez route might be restored in the near future has vanished.</div>

With two attacks on commercial vessels in recent days, including one that killed three mariners, any thought that the risk in the Red Sea was easing to the point the Suez route might be restored in the near future has vanished.

<div class="phx-topic">With no attacks on shipping off the Yemeni coast since December — that is, until two strikes over the past three days — a feeling was taking hold among some ocean carriers that the threat posed by Houthi militants was greatly diminished. And as the threat diminished it would become more difficult for carriers to justify the diversions around southern Africa, which for the past 18 months have absorbed an estimated 10% of global capacity, extending transit times and putting carriers in a stronger position to absorb an influx of new capacity. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6040921_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Now with two attacks in recent days, including one that killed three mariners, any thought that the risk was easing to the point the Suez route might be reopened in the near future has vanished. “The dynamic in the Red Sea has changed materially as compared to expectations roughly a month ago in which there had been a growing view that Red Sea transits would start to pick up following the US-Houthi agreement and the long period in which merchant ships had not been attacked,” Jefferies wrote on July 8. While the Houthi militia may have held fire for several months, the restraint should not be taken as a sign the group’s ability to strike is diminished. Although such a conclusion could be inferred from military setbacks experienced across the network of Iran-backed militia and states such as Syria, in reality, the Houthis remain a lethal force, as they showed this week, analysts say. “The most recent Houthi attacks … allow them to demonstrate that, unlike Iran and its other proxy groups in the region, they remain undeterred by the threat of US or Israeli military confrontation,” Jack Kennedy, head of Middle East and North Africa country risk at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. Israel and the US have upped their strikes on rebels in Yemen in recent months. But without troops on the ground to uproot the rebels, Kennedy has been saying for more than a year that it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group as a danger to shipping through aerial military action alone. “Houthi missile attack capabilities are highly decentralized across the territory they control,” Kennedy said. “These are unlikely to be fully replenished to levels in place prior to US-led and Israeli airstrikes, but seizures of weapons shipments in the Red Sea and the Houthis’ own industrial manufacturing capacity suggest that they will have been able to partially rebuild weapons stockpiles.” Kennedy added that the original spark for Houthi attacks on shipping — Israeli operations in Gaza — remains a core rationale for their strikes. “It is highly likely that attack attempts on vessels will continue while Israeli military operations in Gaza are ongoing,” he said. The result is an extended timeline, quite possibly into 2026, for any large-scale return to Suez routings. “With the developments over the past few days there is not much chance of a reversal back to a Suez routing for the major container lines in the short to medium term,” shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor Lars Jensen wrote on LinkedIn this week. Added Kennedy: “We expect that Houthi attack activity will continue through 2025 at least.” <h3>Ongoing disruption post-COVID </h3>For ocean carriers who didn’t create the crisis and yet are largely immune from criticism for continuing the longer routings around Africa to protect their crews, ships and cargo, the crisis is part of a larger narrative of ongoing post-COVID-19 disruption, alongside basic supply and demand, underpinning market dynamics. Carriers face intense profit pressures over the next few years, with Drewry last month saying it expects industry operating profit to fall to $20 billion this year, down from over $50 billion in 2024. But the pressure would be much greater without the absorption of capacity due to the Red Sea attacks and resultant diversions. Maersk in May ruled out a return to normal Suez routings this year despite US President Donald Trump on May 6 saying the Houthis “have capitulated” and agreed to stop attacks on commercial shipping in the region. But as the new attacks clearly showed, the Houthis were just lying low, meaning the status quo of limited container ship transits through the Suez remains as entrenched as ever. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

With no attacks on shipping off the Yemeni coast since December — that is, until two strikes over the past three days — a feeling was taking hold among some ocean carriers that the threat posed by Houthi militants was greatly diminished. And as the threat diminished it would become more difficult for carriers to justify the diversions around southern Africa, which for the past 18 months have absorbed an estimated 10% of global capacity, extending transit times and putting carriers in a stronger position to absorb an influx of new capacity. Now with two attacks in recent days, including one that killed three mariners, any thought that the risk was easing to the point the Suez route might be reopened in the near future has vanished. “The dynamic in the Red Sea has changed materially as compared to expectations roughly a month ago in which there had been a growing view that Red Sea transits would start to pick up following the US-Houthi agreement and the long period in which merchant ships had not been attacked,” Jefferies wrote on July 8. While the Houthi militia may have held fire for several months, the restraint should not be taken as a sign the group’s ability to strike is diminished. Although such a conclusion could be inferred from military setbacks experienced across the network of Iran-backed militia and states such as Syria, in reality, the Houthis remain a lethal force, as they showed this week, analysts say. “The most recent Houthi attacks … allow them to demonstrate that, unlike Iran and its other proxy groups in the region, they remain undeterred by the threat of US or Israeli military confrontation,” Jack Kennedy, head of Middle East and North Africa country risk at S&P Global Market Intelligence, told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. Israel and the US have upped their strikes on rebels in Yemen in recent months. But without troops on the ground to uproot the rebels, Kennedy has been saying for more than a year that it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group as a danger to shipping through aerial military action alone. “Houthi missile attack capabilities are highly decentralized across the territory they control,” Kennedy said. “These are unlikely to be fully replenished to levels in place prior to US-led and Israeli airstrikes, but seizures of weapons shipments in the Red Sea and the Houthis’ own industrial manufacturing capacity suggest that they will have been able to partially rebuild weapons stockpiles.” Kennedy added that the original spark for Houthi attacks on shipping — Israeli operations in Gaza — remains a core rationale for their strikes. “It is highly likely that attack attempts on vessels will continue while Israeli military operations in Gaza are ongoing,” he said. The result is an extended timeline, quite possibly into 2026, for any large-scale return to Suez routings. “With the developments over the past few days there is not much chance of a reversal back to a Suez routing for the major container lines in the short to medium term,” shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor Lars Jensen wrote on LinkedIn this week. Added Kennedy: “We expect that Houthi attack activity will continue through 2025 at least.” Ongoing disruption post-COVID For ocean carriers who didn’t create the crisis and yet are largely immune from criticism for continuing the longer routings around Africa to protect their crews, ships and cargo, the crisis is part of a larger narrative of ongoing post-COVID-19 disruption, alongside basic supply and demand, underpinning market dynamics. Carriers face intense profit pressures over the next few years, with Drewry last month saying it expects industry operating profit to fall to $20 billion this year, down from over $50 billion in 2024. But the pressure would be much greater without the absorption of capacity due to the Red Sea attacks and resultant diversions. Maersk in May ruled out a return to normal Suez routings this year despite US President Donald Trump on May 6 saying the Houthis “have capitulated” and agreed to stop attacks on commercial shipping in the region. But as the new attacks clearly showed, the Houthis were just lying low, meaning the status quo of limited container ship transits through the Suez remains as entrenched as ever. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

New Houthi attacks likely kill hopes of shipping returning to Red Sea this year

Use code TPM25GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - 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 TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In the latest course correction in the US’ busiest trade lane, carriers are set to deploy less tonnage in August as spot rates fall and retail import forecasts weaken. </div>

In the latest course correction in the US’ busiest trade lane, carriers are set to deploy less tonnage in August as spot rates fall and retail import forecasts weaken.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines are pulling back on the deployment of tonnage from Asia to the US in August in the latest course correction linked to stop-and-start import demand amid tariff uncertainty. Container lines in August are planning to deploy 6.2% less tonnage from Asia to the US West Coast than in July, equating to 98,000 TEUs of capacity, according to a June 30 analysis of eeSea data. Capacity is measured based on the last load port in Asia. Comparatively, ocean capacity from Asia to US East and Gulf coasts will be trimmed just 1.7%.Mediterranean Shipping Co. this week suspended its Pearl service to Long Beach, with the last sailing out of Xiamen on July 13, according to Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer tool. Container lines can also blank sailings — removing ships from services or skipping ports — to further calibrate capacity to weakening demand.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0d272fa5-b752-4ec3-a342-964ef1a2b1f3"></dynamic-object></div>The rate of blanking compared with deployed capacity in May reached 26%, equating to 262,000 TEUs, as carriers adjusted networks, according to eeSea. In June, the rate was 9.5%. <h3>Tariff whiplash </h3>Carriers began pushing capacity back into the trade in May in anticipation of a surge of imports from China, driven by an early peak season caused in large part by the 90-day reprieve on higher US tariffs. Just a month earlier, US importers canceled China bookings after President Donald Trump on April 9 imposed 145% tariffs. In response, ocean carriers blanked sailings and suspended services, although Trump soon reversed course. Now carriers face an expanding capacity overhang amid downbeat retail import forecasts and the surge in US imports linked to the initial tariff reprieve in its last gasp. The tentative agreement with China to bring US tariffs to 55% hasn’t had much impact on importers’ peak season ordering, thanks to more than eight months of frontloading shipments and a narrow window for getting goods in before the year-end shopping season. While US retailers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-on-tariffs-prompts-us-retailers-to-upgrade-summer-import-forecast-6022230">upgraded their import forecast</a> slightly in early June, their volume expectations still lag the same period in 2024. US imports are expected to reach 2.13 million TEUs this month, down from 2.32 million TEUs a year ago, according to the Global Port Tracker. Retailers plan to bring in 14.7% less volume, equating to 331,000 TEUs of capacity, next month compared with August 2024. US laden imports from Asia have been falling since September, with the exception of a short-lived recovery in April, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. In September, inbound volumes hit 1.79 million TEUs, falling to 1.4 million TEUs by May. Container spot rates from Asia to the US, a barometer of how capacity is matching up to demand, have been falling for a month, according to various indexes. For example, container spot rates from Shanghai to the US West Coast last week were less than half the price a month ago, at $2,089 per FEU, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com ">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container lines are pulling back on the deployment of tonnage from Asia to the US in August in the latest course correction linked to stop-and-start import demand amid tariff uncertainty. Container lines in August are planning to deploy 6.2% less tonnage from Asia to the US West Coast than in July, equating to 98,000 TEUs of capacity, according to a June 30 analysis of eeSea data. Capacity is measured based on the last load port in Asia. Comparatively, ocean capacity from Asia to US East and Gulf coasts will be trimmed just 1.7%. Mediterranean Shipping Co. this week suspended its Pearl service to Long Beach, with the last sailing out of Xiamen on July 13, according to Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer tool. Container lines can also blank sailings — removing ships from services or skipping ports — to further calibrate capacity to weakening demand. The rate of blanking compared with deployed capacity in May reached 26%, equating to 262,000 TEUs, as carriers adjusted networks, according to eeSea. In June, the rate was 9.5%. Tariff whiplash Carriers began pushing capacity back into the trade in May in anticipation of a surge of imports from China, driven by an early peak season caused in large part by the 90-day reprieve on higher US tariffs. Just a month earlier, US importers canceled China bookings after President Donald Trump on April 9 imposed 145% tariffs. In response, ocean carriers blanked sailings and suspended services, although Trump soon reversed course. Now carriers face an expanding capacity overhang amid downbeat retail import forecasts and the surge in US imports linked to the initial tariff reprieve in its last gasp. The tentative agreement with China to bring US tariffs to 55% hasn’t had much impact on importers’ peak season ordering, thanks to more than eight months of frontloading shipments and a narrow window for getting goods in before the year-end shopping season. While US retailers upgraded their import forecast slightly in early June, their volume expectations still lag the same period in 2024. US imports are expected to reach 2.13 million TEUs this month, down from 2.32 million TEUs a year ago, according to the Global Port Tracker. Retailers plan to bring in 14.7% less volume, equating to 331,000 TEUs of capacity, next month compared with August 2024. US laden imports from Asia have been falling since September, with the exception of a short-lived recovery in April, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. In September, inbound volumes hit 1.79 million TEUs, falling to 1.4 million TEUs by May. Container spot rates from Asia to the US, a barometer of how capacity is matching up to demand, have been falling for a month, according to various indexes. For example, container spot rates from Shanghai to the US West Coast last week were less than half the price a month ago, at $2,089 per FEU, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container lines cutting trans-Pacific capacity overhang

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the mini rush will be short-lived, with imports falling month to month between August and November, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates said in their latest Global Port Tracker.</div>

But the mini rush will be short-lived, with imports falling month to month between August and November, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates said in their latest Global Port Tracker.

<div class="phx-topic">US imports in July are expected to hit their highest level in at least the past 18 months and their peak for 2025, driven by the Aug. 1 extension granted by the Trump administration before the implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs on a host of US trading partners, a major retail group said Wednesday. But the mini rush will be short-lived, with imports falling month to month between August and November, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates said in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “The tariff situation remains highly fluid and retailers are working hard to stock up for the holiday season before the various tariffs that have been announced and paused actually take effect,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for supply chain and customs policy, said. “Retailers have brought in as much merchandise as possible ahead of the reciprocal tariffs taking effect...” The White House’s unexpected extension of a 90-day pause in new tariffs that were due to take effect July 9 caused the NRF and Hackett to upgrade their import projections for July through October compared with June’s GPT. And while Gold said the brief extension was “greatly appreciated” by retailers, he chided the Trump administration for the seeming whiplash nature of its tariff policy. “...Uncertainty over tariffs makes it increasingly difficult for retailers to plan, especially small businesses that have no capacity to absorb tariffs,” he said. “...It is vital for the administration to finalize negotiations with our trading partners and provide stability and certainty for US retailers.” <h3>Big bump in July forecast </h3>The GPT’s updated forecast calls for 2.36 million TEUs in US imports in July, up almost 11% from the June GPT and surpassing the 2.32 million TEUs brought in during July 2024. July is the only month in the second half of 2025 forecast to see year-over-year increases, so far. In August, retailers expect US imports to reach 2.08 million TEUs, up 5% from the forecast made in June but more than 10% under the 2.32 million TEUs imported in August 2024. September import projections were upgraded to 1.82 million TEUs — up 2.2% from the projection made last month but nearly 20% below year-ago levels. October’s import forecast increased by just half a percent to 1.81 million TEUs, 19.1% below volumes from October 2024. In its initial forecast for November, the GPT pegs imports at 1.7 million TEUs, down 16.2% year over year. Amid the forecasts for significant year-over-year import declines for the second half of 2025, Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett pointed to supply chain uncertainty exacerbated by shifting tariff policies. “The global supply chain functions best in a trade environment that is smooth and predictable,” he said. “Instead, it has been forced to contend with erratic policies and geopolitical volatility.” The latest GPT projects June’s import volumes will come in at 2.06 million TEUs, up about 2.5% from the forecast made last month. Meanwhile, May’s actual volume of 1.95 million TEUs was about 2% higher than projected in the prior GPT. As volumes in the trans-Pacific look to retract beyond July, carriers have responded with reductions to capacity, with plans to deploy 6.2% less tonnage from Asia to the US West Coast in August than in July, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US imports in July are expected to hit their highest level in at least the past 18 months and their peak for 2025, driven by the Aug. 1 extension granted by the Trump administration before the implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs on a host of US trading partners, a major retail group said Wednesday. But the mini rush will be short-lived, with imports falling month to month between August and November, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates said in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “The tariff situation remains highly fluid and retailers are working hard to stock up for the holiday season before the various tariffs that have been announced and paused actually take effect,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for supply chain and customs policy, said. “Retailers have brought in as much merchandise as possible ahead of the reciprocal tariffs taking effect...” The White House’s unexpected extension of a 90-day pause in new tariffs that were due to take effect July 9 caused the NRF and Hackett to upgrade their import projections for July through October compared with June’s GPT. And while Gold said the brief extension was “greatly appreciated” by retailers, he chided the Trump administration for the seeming whiplash nature of its tariff policy. “...Uncertainty over tariffs makes it increasingly difficult for retailers to plan, especially small businesses that have no capacity to absorb tariffs,” he said. “...It is vital for the administration to finalize negotiations with our trading partners and provide stability and certainty for US retailers.” Big bump in July forecast The GPT’s updated forecast calls for 2.36 million TEUs in US imports in July, up almost 11% from the June GPT and surpassing the 2.32 million TEUs brought in during July 2024. July is the only month in the second half of 2025 forecast to see year-over-year increases, so far. In August, retailers expect US imports to reach 2.08 million TEUs, up 5% from the forecast made in June but more than 10% under the 2.32 million TEUs imported in August 2024. September import projections were upgraded to 1.82 million TEUs — up 2.2% from the projection made last month but nearly 20% below year-ago levels. October’s import forecast increased by just half a percent to 1.81 million TEUs, 19.1% below volumes from October 2024. In its initial forecast for November, the GPT pegs imports at 1.7 million TEUs, down 16.2% year over year. Amid the forecasts for significant year-over-year import declines for the second half of 2025, Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett pointed to supply chain uncertainty exacerbated by shifting tariff policies. “The global supply chain functions best in a trade environment that is smooth and predictable,” he said. “Instead, it has been forced to contend with erratic policies and geopolitical volatility.” The latest GPT projects June’s import volumes will come in at 2.06 million TEUs, up about 2.5% from the forecast made last month. Meanwhile, May’s actual volume of 1.95 million TEUs was about 2% higher than projected in the prior GPT. As volumes in the trans-Pacific look to retract beyond July, carriers have responded with reductions to capacity, with plans to deploy 6.2% less tonnage from Asia to the US West Coast in August than in July, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Ports fear emissions grants under threat amid EPA budget slashing

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Global dockworker unions plan Lisbon gathering for anti-automation ‘call to action’

Trump’s Vietnam ‘transshipment’ tariff puzzles US trade community

New Houthi attacks likely kill hopes of shipping returning to Red Sea this year

Recent Commentary

Latest market ‘disruptor’ requires focused procurement approach by C-suites

Werner victory in long-running court case has broad implications for truckload carriers

Top 5 Most Read Stories