We urge Member States, the Parliament and the Commission to finalise the agreement but not before remedying several outstanding issues that could jeopardise the reform’s success – as seen in versions of the text circulated prior to adoption.   

Key Progress in Adapting the Code to the Realities of Trade  

Temporary Storage 

The maritime sector welcomes amendments proposed by Council reinstating current provisions for the temporary storage of goods in EU ports. This is vital for ports, terminals, importers, exporters and all those that rely on maritime supply chains. The Council’s proposal to maintain the time limit at 90 days, while allowing extensions under specific circumstances, is indeed key for the seamless functioning of port operations and (maritime) logistics chains. 

The liner shipping hub and spoke model depends on transhipment which in turn depends on an efficient temporary storage regime.  All parties need the elimination of unnecessary operational administrative and IT costs. The text seen by trade also includes detailed provisions on authorisations and the movement of goods between temporary storage facilities which will facilitate business.  

Finally, – considering the high volumes handled in EU ports – it is crucial that trusted operators of temporary storage facilities can apply for a guarantee waiver as this is key to safeguard their financial solvency. We therefore urge the co-legislators to also keep this facilitation open to companies that are currently certified AEO-C. 

Customs Data Hub 

The maritime sector strongly supports the introduction of the EU Customs Data Hub as a single point of access for economic operators to submit electronic customs data to fulfil their legal obligations. For economic operators this is one of the major trade facilitations of the reform. We are pleased therefore that Member States have supported this proposal. We welcome the fact that the General Approach explicitly allows the use of port community systems and other transport information systems for fulfilling customs formalities. However, in order to enhance simplification, competitivity and harmonisation, it is important that the EU Maritime Single Window, is also able to connect and provide data to the Customs Data Hub. 

Consultation of trade stakeholders 

The consultation of trade stakeholders is crucial to ensure that customs legislation works not only theory but is operationally feasible and can be implemented in practice. Hence, we welcome the Council’s recognition of the role that the EC Trade Contact Group will have in preparing the delegated and implementing legislation associated with this reform as well as the business community’s role in supporting the operation of the Customs Data Hub. As Trade Contact Group members, the undersigned organisations stand ready to provide their expertise.  

Important Areas for Improvement  

Legal Continuity  

With the adoption of the new UCC the existing code, its secondary legislation and data annexes will be ‘repealed and replaced’. To ensure the continued functioning of core UCC IT systems and processes for the entry of cargo into the EU which will not be immediately replaced, the existing UCC secondary legislation and data annexes should be maintained until amended. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of clarity about exactly which provisions of the new Code will enter into force when. For example, while the text clarifies that the current Entry Summary Declaration will be considered as the required advance cargo information until the implementation of the EU Data Hub, new powers to prevent a carrier unloading cargo due to missing information are not clearly postponed until the same date.  

Appropriate Liabilities and Roles  

There is also considerable concern about the designation of a single importer that is liable for all non-fiscal compliance obligations connected to goods. While the proposals  state that there is only one importer, it also states elsewhere that there may be different importers at different times. This is a recipe for legal confusion.  

For example, the General Approach would require that a carrier transporting goods between Asia and the US via an EU transhipment port should assume the responsibilities of an EU importer.  Such rules are neither fair nor effective. A carrier handling ten of thousands of containers simply cannot assume the same liabilities for those individual goods as an importer can. Terminal operators handle similar quantities of cargo and can therefore neither take on the role of importer, due to the associated costs and lacking access to the right information. Insisting on this may undermine the position of EU ports as transhipment hubs.

This group is convinced that more work is needed to ensure that economic operators are not required to fulfil roles or assume responsibilities that they are in no position to meet. Parties should never be held liable for the accuracy of data, that they faithfully submit on behalf on behalf of their customers but do not generate in the course of their own business and have no means to verify.  

Fair penalties and sanctions  

We are also disappointed that Member States appear to have rejected outright all the European Commission’s proposals to reduce the huge inconsistencies between Member States and their application of penalties for infringements. This undermines the Customs Union.  To facilitate trade and to improve authorities’ capacity to combat illicit economic activities, it is paramount to prevent divergences in the application of sanctions, penalties and enforcement across the EU. 

ENDS

This is a joint statement attributable to EU port and maritime stakeholders: European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT), European Community Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ECASBA), European Shipowners (ECSA), European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), FEPORT, and World Shipping Council (WSC) 

Download a copy of this joint statement.

World Shipping Council's supplementary statement on Customs Reform

Damian Viccars, the World Shipping Council’s Director of Government Affairs, Europe, says:

“The World Shipping Council welcomes the Council’s General Approach to EU Customs reform as a necessary move toward a more unified and trade-friendly Customs Union. A competitive Europe is one that realises its true advantage as a customs union with harmonised processes that keep goods moving smoothly in and out of the EU – that is not the case today.”

“Ocean carriers depend on efficient, predictable customs systems in the service of exporters and importers. The Council’s support for maintaining the 90-day temporary storage period is a vital step for smooth transhipment and port operations. Equally important is the Customs Data Hub—its success depends on interoperability with existing maritime systems. That’s why the long-overdue implementation of the EU Maritime Single Window must now be treated as a priority. Continued delays by Member States are holding back Europe and its Single Market.”

“What’s still missing from the Customs reform is sharper legal clarity. Carriers should not be assigned roles—like importer liability—that they are neither equipped nor empowered to fulfil. And enforcement must be consistent: major divergences in national penalties only undermine the Customs Union’s credibility. There is an opportunity in the upcoming trilogues to set that right.”

ENDS

The World Shipping Council (WSC) is the primary industry trade association representing the global liner industry. Our industry encompasses container liners and vehicle carriers.

We write today to express our deep concern with the vehicle carrier remedies that have been actioned in Annex III of your “Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting the Maritime, Logistics and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance”. Annex III contains significant flaws that if not amended, will inflict economic harm on U.S. manufacturers who export $20 billion annually by sea in American-made cars and tractors, and American consumers who are facing increasing vehicle prices.

We ask that, as USTR has done with all other Annexes, it opens an Annex III docket for public comment. A 30 to 60-day comment period would allow USTR to benefit from public comment and would not burden USTR because the docket would close well before USTR’s announced implementation date of October 14, 2025.

Annex III’s flaws, among others, include:

• Applying the fee to all foreign vessels. Nearly all vehicle carrier vessels serving the United States are foreign built. By imposing a fee on all foreign vessels, to the extent Chinese built vehicle carriers represent the best value in today’s market, the USTR is actually incentivizing the purchase of Chinese-built vessels. Fees on all foreign vessels otherwise far exceed USTR’s 301 authority, which requires it to tailor a remedy to curb China’s behavior it found actionable in the underlying investigation. And, as WSC has previously stated in our comments to USTR throughout this proceeding, retroactive fees on already built Chinese vessels will do nothing to curb the behavior USTR has found actionable.

• Using CEU or “Car Equivalent Unit” as the metric for calculating fees. CEU has no universally accepted definition, and vehicle carriers’ CEU’s can fluctuate based upon adjustment of deck configurations to carry different types of cargo, i.e., large heavy rolling stock versus passenger vehicles. Here, we also note that using Annex II’s metric of Net Tonnage (NT), would not be appropriate for vehicle carriers because their enclosed design yields an extremely high net tonnage calculation. A better metric might be a fee per vehicle carried, with credit provided for each vehicle exported on that same vessel.

• Not including a fee cap at more than 5 voyages per year.

• Not including applicable Targeted Coverages contained in Annex II, such as:

  o MSP Program and Government Cargo Exemption. Vehicle carriers account for one third of the vessels enrolled in the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Maritime Security Program (MSP), to support Department of Defense sealift and logistics requirements.

  o Smaller Vessel Exemption. Just as USTR provided targeted coverage relief for operators of smaller container and bulk vessels, the same should apply to vehicle carriers with a capacity of less than 80,000 deadweight tons.

These are just some of the reasons the Annex III determination is flawed. Opening an Annex III docket will enable USTR to consider unique aspects of the vehicle carrier vessel industry, which has route configurations, vessel sizes, and services that differ from those of providers of other types of maritime transportation, including container vessel operators, and collect the information it needs to best amend Annex III.

The World Shipping Council fully supports the Administration’s stated goal of revitalizing the U.S. maritime and shipbuilding industry. WSC and its member lines reiterate their readiness to lend their considerable expertise to assist the Administration in its goal of revitalizing the U.S. maritime industry and shipbuilding.

Sincerely,

Joe Kramek President and CEO World Shipping Council

Download the WSC letter to Ambassador Greer here.

The undersigned associations represent the EU maritime cluster. Bringing together shipping lines, ports, terminals, agents, forwarders and shippers we wish to make the following recommendations to Council as they prepare to adopt a UCC General Approach.

Temporary Storage

Maintaining an efficient temporary storage regime is critical for entire EU port ecosystems. Reducing its length from 90 days to 3 days will negatively impact the fluidity of cargo flows and undermine efficient maritime trade through the hub and spoke model. It would impose significant operational, administrative and IT costs in EU ports, while hampering shippers’ capacity to effectively manage their supply chains.

We call on the Council to retain the 90 days time limit for temporary storage as provided in the current UCC. Moreover, current processes for placing goods in, and removing goods from, Temporary Storage should be retained in full also. Increasing the administrative burdens, fiscal or non fiscal obligations for the parties involved should be avoided.

Where goods are moved between two non-EU countries via Europe, (e.g Africa to Latin America via an EU port) there is no EU importer. Imposing on a carrier or terminal - handling many tens of thousands of containers – the liabilities normally held by an importer for a specific consignment, would be ineffective. Poorly designed legislation could damage the attractiveness of EU ports for handling these cargo flows.

Finally, under the current UCC, trusted operators of temporary storage facilities (TSOs) can apply for a waiver to provide a guarantee for the goods they hold in temporary storage. The high volumes handled in ports, means this guarantee is crucial to safeguard TSO’s financial solvency. The access of trusted TSOs to a guarantee waiver should be ensured in the UCC reform, for example, by allowing this facilitation to AEO-C certified operators.

Fair Penalties and Sanctions

The Customs Union is undermined by the huge divergences in the application of sanctions, penalties and UCC enforcement across the EU. The harmonisation of customs infringements and non-criminal sanctions is vital and should be done keeping in mind the following important considerations:

• Sanctions should apply only in cases of obvious negligence or intentional infringements, avoiding strict liability, which is both unjustified and goes against the current legislation in most Member States.

• Criminal prosecution should be reserved for the most serious infringements involving negligence or intent. Some Member States prosecute all infringements criminally and impose excessive fines.

• Harmonising customs infringements must also involve harmonising procedural rules, including customs audits, decision-making, and defence rights.

• The UCC should establish clearer distinctions of liability, particularly between those who declare information which they generate in the course of their business and those that relay information on behalf of others.

Legal continuity

With the adoption of the new UCC the existing code, its secondary legislation and data annexes will be ‘repealed and replaced’. To ensure the continued functioning of core UCC IT systems and processes for the entry of cargo into the EU, the existing UCC secondary legislation and data annexes should be maintained until amended. We urge that legal certainty be provided through the adoption of sufficient transitional provisions in the UCC.

Clarity is also needed for how to apply for an authorisation to operate a temporary storage facility or for movement of goods between temporary storage facilities, a procedure necessary to allow the movement of cargo between two terminals in the same port.

Cargo Security

New powers to prevent a carrier from unloading the goods, in case of missing data could severely disrupt trade and are unnecessary in view of existing powers to prevent a carrier from loading cargo in a third country.

Presentation of Goods when Advance Cargo Data is missing

Parties other than the carrier also need to be legally required to provide missing advance cargo data once goods have arrived. This would mirror the current UCC and the ENS multiple filing requirements applicable before the cargo has arrived.

Cargo remaining on board versus cargo for discharge in a port

The UCC needs to distinguish clearly between cargo remaining on board a vessel and cargo for discharge in each EU port. The reform proposals currently require all cargo on board be placed in temporary storage or under a customs procedure at the first EU port and not where it is discharged.

Interconnection with the EU Maritime Single Window Environment (EMSWe)

The EU Customs Data Hub should enable interoperability with the EU Maritime Single Window environment to ensure it can be used for the submission of customs formalities set down in the annex of the EMSWe Regulation. In addition, to ensure greater efficiency and avoid duplication, the Data Hub should remain open to a range of data providers and platforms currently operating.

Read the full Statement from the Maritime Cluster in UCC Reform here.

The CBER is consistent with the approach taken in the vast majority of nations that trade with the EU (several recently renewing their equivalent legal frameworks); inconsistent policies could create disruption to liner shipping services and trade. WSC is therefore calling on Member States and their national competition authorities (NCAs) to support the renewal of the CBER beyond its April 2024 expiry date.

Read the full Briefing Paper: European Commission Evaluation of the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation

WSC’s comments show how the Commission’s proposed rule: (i) ignores express Congressional directives and prior Commission precedent, (ii) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the contractual rights and responsibilities of various parties along the supply chain, and (iii), if adopted, abandons the Incentive Principle and will disincentivize many parties in the supply chain from timely collecting goods from marine terminals and returning
empty equipment for use by other customers.

Download the full comments here

Section 7 of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 20222 (OSRA 22), requires the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) to define when a carrier has unreasonably refused to negotiate or deal with respect to vessel space accommodations. See 46 U.S.C. § 41104(a)(10). To meet this Congressional direction the FMC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FMC Docket No. 22-24. In its NPRM, the Commission states that the term “unreasonable” must be determined on a case-by-case basis, reviewing the circumstances presented at the time of the claim. To help define what scope of actions will be reviewed, the Commission has proposed a factor test to guide their Administrative Law Judges (ALJ).

WSC agrees with the Commission that allegations of “unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate” be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that using a suite of non-exclusive factors is both appropriate and consistent with its past precedent. This is the approach that the Commission has consistently used when adjudicating cases brought under 46 U.S.C. § 41104(a) and its predecessors. It is important to remember in this regard that OSRA 22 did not create the “unreasonable refusal to deal” prohibition. Instead, OSRA 22 merely added language to the section by expressly naming vessel space accommodations as a factual situation to which the prohibition applies. Thus, adherence to past Commission precedent is required absent a reasoned explanation why its prior policies and standards are being changed.

Although WSC agrees with the Commission’s general approach, there are four specific points on which WSC urges the Commission to amend its proposal before publishing a final rule:

Delete proposed subsection 542.1(b)(2)(i). This subsection lists the first factor in the test for unreasonableness as: “Whether the ocean common carrier follows a documented export strategy that enables the efficient movement of export cargo.” Listing adherence to a written “export strategy” as the first factor in a reasonableness test creates a de facto requirement that carriers create such a document, and the Commission has no authority to impose such a requirement. Not only does the Commission not have the authority to require the development and production of such a document, the Commission has also failed to explain how an export strategy document would have any relevance to or evidentiary value in evaluating the reasonableness of subsequent action or inaction by an ocean carrier as it pertains to any individual decision on whether to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space accommodations.

Delete the statement in the preamble that: “A common carrier granting customers special treatment to one party because that party is a regular customer is likewise likely to be viewed as unreasonable.” 87 FR 57677. This statement is contrary to law as it is categorically at odds with the confidential service contracting provisions added by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA 1998),3 which were left undisturbed by OSRA 22. This misstatement (citing to a marine terminal case from 19684) ignores the most consequential change made by OSRA 1998 and, if not removed, will taint the entire rulemaking.

Expand proposed subsection 542.1(b)(2)(ii) to include enumerated legitimate business factors, in the same way that the Commission has enumerated “transportation factors” in 542.1(b)(1), to correspond to the use of those factors in subsection 542.1(b)(2)(iii).5 This would be consistent with the Commission’s prior precedent finding actions to be reasonable that are connected to either legitimate business decisions or legitimate “transportation factors.” Failure to include legitimate business factors risks those factors receiving little to no weight in the adjudication of claims. This further leaves both regulated and protected entities with little insight into the Commission’s thinking as to what overall factors will be considered in evaluating “good-faith negotiations” and whether “business decisions … were subsequently applied in a fair and consistent manner.”6

Revise proposed subsection 542.1(d) by adding or clarifying the following – 1) add to the text of the regulation that the burden of production shifts to the carrier but that the burden of persuasion remains with the complainant; and 2) either eliminate the text regarding submittal of evidence through a certified statement by a “compliance officer” or set forth what other methods carriers may use to provide rebuttal evidence. The language of the proposed rule sets forth a very specific means by which a carrier may make that rebuttal – certification – which could be read to suggest that certification is the only way that a carrier may produce rebuttal evidence. WSC does not understand this to be the Commission’s intent, and therefore seeks clarifying language to either specify additional means of submitting rebuttal evidence or removal of the certification example.

Download the full WSC Comments to the FMC proposed rulemaking Docket No. 22-24.

On 17 May, the ENVI Committee will vote on Peter Liese’s Committee Report amending the EC draft proposal to include international shipping within the EU ETS. We welcome this key moment in the history of EU climate action and on the path towards shipping’s green future.

The shipping sector represented by The World Shipping Council, Assarmatori and Danish Shipping is committed to achieving the EU Green Deal’s goals and to move as fast as possible to zero GHG emissions. To set the right course MEPs should vote for ambitious proposals that are also well calibrated to help shipping meet the challenges ahead. There are three key areas where we need the ENVI Committee to craft the best possible mechanism for a sustainable shipping sector. At the upcoming ENVI vote we advocate for:

Ambition to include all GHGs (CO2, N2O, CH4) and to properly value them in EU ETS

• All GHGs must be covered to tackle climate change and further incentivize the introduction of real renewably derived shipping fuels reflecting the full life cycle of those fuels from production to use. To do otherwise would simply shift GHGs to another part of the value chain.

• We urge MEPs to vote in favour of including all GHGs in the EU ETS as proposed in Compromise Amendment 14 and through delegated acts take into account well-to-wake performance of renewable and low-carbon fuels.

Setting the right geographical scope for ambitious and global GHG progress, while avoiding competitive and economic harm

• We want a global carbon price. A clear and unambiguous EU ETS market signal for shipping within the EU network of ports will avoid carbon leakage. It will also accelerate a shift to low-GHG fuels, aligned in both scope and timing with the emerging technologies that really will reduce GHGs.

• A regional EU ETS within the European Economic Area, i.e. an intra-EU scope, can best encourage global agreement at IMO, while minimizing trade and economic distortions with other nations. Intra-EU scope supports a resilient and sustainable EU economy, prevents GHG leakage, avoids competition risks for EU ports, minimizes consumer costs and does not hinder a global agreement where 80% of shipping emissions must be tackled. Proposals to extend coverage to 50% or 100% of international voyages invite unwanted trade and political consequences.

• We therefore urge MEPs to reconsider the merits of an intra-EU scope rather than extending coverage as proposed in Compromise Amendment 18.

Ambition to foster: long term decarbonisation, through technological innovation; the legal space for diverse contractual relationships and compliance with clear responsibility

• We recognise that freedom of contract ensures rational industry responses to demand and price signals and hence that the market will deliver the right balance to determine to whom the cost of allowances should be allocated.

• Shared responsibility between shipowners and operators will be needed to jointly deploy technologies and modify operations to transition to lower-GHG fuels. Prescribing for the market who should be exposed to GHG pricing creates a barrier to innovation, slowing the energy transition to reduce GHGs from shipping.

• Both shipowners and charters share a responsibility for the green transition respectively ensuring the right investments in new green ships and in the operations of ships. The Commission’s version of the text ensures that all parties can respond together to EU ETS market signals to achieve GHG reductions.

• We urge MEPs not to restrict freedom of contract in a market-based measure as proposed in Compromise Amendment 16.

We would like to thank you for the consideration you may give to these perspectives from an industry that is ready, eager and with you now for sustainable change!

Every day, tens of thousands of containers arrive at seaports from countries all around the world.

Containers and other cargo are carried aboard liner ships – container and roll-on-roll-off (roro) vessels – which offer regularly scheduled service on fixed routes - much like a bus or train service. Liner shipping is the backbone of global supply chains and because of shipping, developing economies have been able to export their products across the world, creating jobs and improving living standards.

Asia is at the epicentre of the international container shipping market with the Asia trade regions representing some 70% of the more than 170 million TEUs of international container trade that transits the globe. The Intra-Asia trade alone accounts for at least one-quarter of the global market.

A perfect storm

The COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world in 2020 triggered a “perfect storm” for global container shipping, putting a strain on supply chains and disrupting global trade. The normally stable and predictable patterns of product demand, sourcing, production, and distribution were thrown into fundamental disarray, overwhelming global supply chains.

The impacts are being felt across the world and in liner shipping in the form of constant challenges for crew changeovers, congestion in ports and throughout inland supply chains, as well as poor container velocity.

The container supply chain is made up of multiple businesses and individuals, each of which are taking steps to ease the disruption facing supply chains. The challenge for all parties is to find ways to make the current system work better. To remove bottlenecks, container velocity must increase, forecasting accuracy must improve, and transparency must increase across the supply chain. These are operational measures that require constant dialogue between service providers and shippers to support each other and collaborate for better outcomes. Ocean carriers recognise the part they must play in that and are actively engaging to meet shipper demand and ease the flow of goods.

Supporting Supply Chains

In the short term, the most important actions governments can take are to facilitate crew changes, recognise seafarers and shoreside workers as key workers and ensure their prioritize their vaccination against COVID-19. These steps, together with continued investment in port and logistics infrastructure, educational resources, and ensuring regulatory predictability will contribute to resilient global supply chains in the long term.

Together for the Decarbonisation of Shipping

The World Shipping Council is committed to working with the EU Institutions to achieve the Green Deal’s goals through good policy that will support industry greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and move as fast as possible to zero GHG emissions. EU Policy, including the revision to the EU ETS Directive has a unique opportunity to strengthen, motivate and complement global policy for reducing GHGs in international shipping.

• WSC supports inclusion of maritime sector in the EU ETS, and targeted amendments to the EC proposal can optimize its impact both within the EU and on the global stage.

• Including shipping in an open, multi-sectoral EU ETS can reduce regional shipping GHGs by about 42% and accelerate GHG reductions among non-maritime sectors.

• The EC’s proposed definition of “company” supports implementation and stability for compliance reporting, by recognising that both shipowners and ship operators have shared agency in eliminating harmful emissions, through ship design and operations.

• An intra-EU geographic scope of application to shipping would better serve the success of the Fit-for-55 Package by reducing carbon leakage and market distortions, providing a better fit with the regional reach of RED and AFIR, being more compatible with Member State reporting to UNFCC and providing a stronger basis for the EU to lead on adoption of global MBMs for shipping.

Download the EU ETS Position paper in full here.

Together for the Decarbonisation of Shipping

The World Shipping Council is committed to working with EU Institutions to achieve the Green Deal’s goals through good policy that will support industry GHG reduction targets and move as fast as possible to zero GHG emissions. EU Policy, including the Fuel EU Maritime Regulation has a unique opportunity to strengthen, motivate and complement global policy for reducing GHGs in international shipping.

WSC strongly supports the proposed:

• Well-to-wake or lifecycle approach to GHG intensity, a globally accepted scientific approach providing the most comprehensive basis for measuring progress towards GHG targets.

• Pooling of compliance amongst ships as a practical way to achieve GHG intensity reductions among diverse vessel types and company sizes, incentivizing companies to invest in ever more efficient vessels due to the fleet wide effect.

• Definition of “company” which recognises that both shipowners and ship operators have shared agency in eliminating harmful emissions, supporting implementation and stability for compliance.
  

 Certain amendments would strengthen the proposal further:

• An intra-EU geographic scope would better match the means provided in RED and AFIR for renewable fuel supply. It would avoid the pitfalls of overlapping of regional and global policy reported in the EU Impact Assessment thus strengthening the EU leadership in global climate change efforts.

• A 2019 reference year for carbon intensity reductions would be consistent with regional and global methodologies, making for a more effective FuelEU Maritime Regulation and reducing the administrative burden of compliance on companies.

• Fuel use obligations should be made contingent on the availability of suitable fuels delivered through the implementation of RED and AFIR.

Download the full position paper here