Chinese Special Port Fee Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025

Explanatory Notes

As a direct response to the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) “Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance,” the PRC Ministry of Transportation issued  “Announcement on the Collection of Special Port Fees on Vessels of United States (Announcement No. 54 [2025])” on 10 October 2025 imposing fees on US related ships calling at Chinese ports.  These fees came into effect on 14 October 2025.

This clause addresses fees imposed under the PRC MOT Announcement for vessels with a nexus to the United States in a time charter context. It may be incorporated into new charterparties and into existing agreements.

The clause allocates responsibility for these fees primarily to charterers, except in specific circumstances outlined in subclauses (c) and (d), where liability may shift wholly or partially to owners. This approach mirrors the BIMCO USTR Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025.
The fee structure under the PRC MOT Announcement is simpler than under the USTR measures, with a single fee category that either applies or does not. Certain ambiguities remain in the regulatory language, such as the definition of “operator,” which cannot be resolved within the clause.
NOTE: it is important to note that these fees have been suspended for 12 months. Despite this suspension, BIMCO has published the Chinese Special Port Fee Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025 to allow owners and charterers to incorporate the clause into charterparties that extend beyond the suspension period or where parties wish to prepare for potential reinstatement.

Drafting Team

The BIMCO Chinese Special Port Fee Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025 is the result of a collaborative and consensual process between owners, charterers, P&I Clubs and other stakeholders. BIMCO is grateful to the drafting team for their considerable time, effort and commitment in producing this clause:

• Daniel Carr, Stolt-Nielsen
• Capt Lin Huoping, COSCO Shipping
• Daisy Kairis, Prominence Maritime
• Jens Erik Kundby Nielsen, Ultrabulk
• Shunsuke Takeshita, NYK Line
• Yannis Botonakis, Chartworld
• Ann Shazell, Cargill International
• Richard Reisert, ASBA
• Scott Pilkington, NorthStandard
• Matthew Thomas, Blank Rome (Washington)
• Alexander Brandt, Reed Smith (London)

BIMCO Secretariat:

• Stinne Taiger Ivø
• Carl Wilhelm Lindahl
• Indu Chitran

Explanatory Notes

These explanatory notes are intended to provide an insight into the thinking behind the BIMCO Chinese Port Fee Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025. They also explain how the clause is intended to operate and the allocation of responsibilities and costs between the parties. If you have any questions about the clause, please contact us at contracts@bimco.org and we will be happy to assist.

Key Features of the Clause

The clause responds to port fees imposed by China on vessels linked to the United States in a time charter context. Given that the Chinese measures are counter measures taken in direct response to the US’s actions, the clause is built on  BIMCO USTR Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025 to ensure consistency between the two clauses.

The clause functions in the same manner as the USTR Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025. Key differences between the two clauses are found in subclauses (a), (c), and (e):

• Subclause (a) sets out the criteria that determines whether a vessel falls within the scope of PRC MOT Announcement. 
• Unlike the USTR measures, where different levels of fee may apply depending on whether the vessel falls under Annex I or Annex II, the PRC MOT Announcement provides for a single fee with no variance in amount.  Hence, subclause (c) does not place any responsibility on Charterers for fee increases as none are anticipated. 
• The subcommittee understands that direct payment to local authorities is not possible and that payment of the Fee is made to the local authorities in local currency, Renminbi (RMB), via local agents.  Hence, subclause (e) does not prohibit payment of the Fee via local agents as it does at subclause (e) of BIMCO USTR Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025 where direct payment to US authorities is possible via the online payment portal.  

It is also important to note that certain ambiguities remain — particularly regarding the interpretation of terms used in the PRC MOT Announcement. For example, the definition of “operator” is not clearly established in the current regulatory language. These uncertainties are inherent in the announcement  and cannot be resolved through this clause, which merely reflects the existing regulatory framework.

This clause does not give parties the right to terminate the contract, a right to exercise a lien on cargo, or to automatic off-hire. The relevant terms of the contract, if any, continue to govern these remedies.

Definition of “Fee”

The definition of “Fee” reference the fees that are to be imposed under the PRC MOT Announcement and as outlined above, the fee structure is simpler with only one fee category.
The subcommittee have deliberately not used the terminology “Special Port Fee” in order to make the clause easier to read.

Subclause (a)

This subclause places an obligation on owners to declare, on charterers’ request , whether any entities associated with the vessel have a nexus with United States under subclauses (a)(i)-(a)(iv), or whether the vessel was built in United States under subclause (a)(v).  

The clause also places an obligation on the owners to notify charterers of any change in status during the charter period. This approach reflects that owners are best placed to know and verify this information. It also avoids the need for owners to disclose personal details of individuals in their organisational structure.

The use of 'US' in subclauses (a)(i)–(iii) and 'United States' in subclauses (iv) and (v) is intentional as this distinction reflects whether the term is used as a noun or an adjective, in alignment with  legal drafting styles applicable in the United States.

It is worth noting that the declaration at subclause (a) is intended to provide Charterers an insight, at the time of contracting, on whether the vessel “as is” is likely to be subject to fees.  Owners are responsible for declaring any entity with a US nexus under subclauses (a)(i) to (a)(v) within their contractual chain, i.e., Owners and parties up the contractual chain. It is not the subcommittee’s intention that any reporting form presented to local authorities mirror the declaration at subclause (a) as the declaration at subclause (a) is limited to Owners’ knowledge only and does not take into account complexities which Charterers and parties down the contractual chain may bring to the vessel’s matrix at the time of entering the Chinese port.

Subclause (b)

Under subclause (b), charterers are wholly responsible for all fees incurred as a result of the vessel calling into China pursuant to charterers’ orders.  It is anticipated that in most instances, charterers will be responsible for fees incurred.  

Subclause (c)

Subclause (c) specifies the circumstances under which the burden to pay the fee shifts from charterers to owners.. 

Under subclause (c)(i), owners will be liable for fees incurred as a result of owners’ inaccurate and/or incomplete or failure to provide the declaration requested under subclause (a).
 
Example A

At the time of signing the contract, charterers request owners to provide an undertaking under subclause (a) and owners fail to provide this declaration.  The responsibility to pay the fee shifts from charterers to owners.

Example B

At the time of signing the contract, charterers request owners to provide a declaration under subclause (a) and owners’ misdeclare leading charterers to wrongly assess whether the vessel will incur fees under the PRC MOT Announcement.

Where charterers relying on the declaration have reasonably anticipated that no fee will be incurred and a fee is in fact incurred, owners are liable for the fee incurred in whole.

Example C 

At the time of signing the contract, charterers request owners to provide an undertaking under subclause (a) and owners providing an objectively accurate declaration stating “no” to subclauses (a)(i) to (a)(v).  Subsequently, the vessel is sub chartered to an US-linked entity thus attracting a fee when the vessel calls into China as the local authorities deem the vessel to be operated by a US entity. 

Charterers remain responsible for the fee as Owners’ declaration was accurate.  The sub charterer is down the contractual chain and it would not be fair for Owners to be responsible for risks arising from subsequent contractual agreements.

Under subclause (c)(ii) and (c)(iii), owners will be liable for fees incurred as a result of their changes to entities associated with the vessel subsequent to the declaration under subclause (a) notwithstanding that owners have notified charterers of such change under subclause (a).

The declaration at subclause (a) gives charterers an insight into whether the vessel falls within the scope of the PRC MOT Announcment. While the clause does not impose an obligation on owners to ensure that there are no changes to vessel’s nexus to the United States, should owners effect a change, owners are liable for the additional exposure incurred as a result. This approach allows owners to have flexibility to utilise their assets as they deem fit while providing charterers with certainty on their contractual obligations.  

This subclause specifies circumstances where owners are wholly liable for the fees incurred.  Of crucial importance is causation.  Where the fee is incurred as a result of the specified list of circumstances, the responsibility for the fee lies with owners. 

Example D

The vessel is scheduled to call a Chinese port pursuant to charterers’ orders and suffers a contractual off-hire event enroute.  The off-hire event is not causal to the call into China.  In the event the call attracts a fee, charterers remain liable for the fee.

Example E

The vessel is not scheduled to call a Chinese port and suffers an engine breakdown enroute to destination.  Owners direct the vessel to call into a Chinese port as a port of refuge. Should this call be subject to a fee as the vessel calls into China on owners’ orders, owners are liable for any fee imposed.  

Subclause (e)

This subclause specifies that payment is to be made promptly to the relevant PRC Agency. It stops short of mandating payment must be made via local agents to allow for greater flexibility and longevity of the clause. It is worth noting that it allows for payment to be made via local agents as the express prohibition in the USTR Clause has not been carried through.

Subclause (f)

This subclause covers situations where the PRC Agency would only accept payment from owners via the local agents. In such cases, if charterers are liable, they must reimburse owners for the fee paid. This ensures flexibility in handling payment procedures if there would be any restriction imposed by the PRC Agency.

Subclauses (g)

This subclause specifies remedies for charterers failure to make prompt payment or reimbursement of the fees.  Subclause (g)(i) requires charterers to take immediate steps to rectify the failure.  The subcommittee decided against setting a time frame for rectification as this would vary from case to case. Parties may consider specifying a period by which charterers are to rectify their failure.
Subclause (g)(ii) allows for Owners to suspend performance where charterers have failed to make payment or reimbursement of the fees.  In such instances, premiums for additional insurance cover, e.g., Shipowners’ Liability Cover, may be incurred. The term “damages” at subclause (g)(iii) is intended to allow recovery of such expenses.

Subclause (h)

While the clause allows charterers to recover time lost arising from owners’ failure to make payment under subclause (h)(ii), this is not intended to trigger automatic off-hire but rather a basis for charterers to recover financial compensation.  The off-hire clause, if any will continue to govern off-hire events.

Copyright and Availability

Copyright in the BIMCO Chinese Special Port Fee Clause for Time Charter Parties 2025 is held by BIMCO.