tl;dr
Atlantic Container Line (ACL) is hit with a $34M annual tariff bill after being reclassified as a roll-on/roll-off carrier under Trump-era trade rules, disrupting supply chains and sparking debates over regulatory fairness.
**U.S. Carrier Faces $34M Tariff Hit After Last-Minute Fee Changes Under Trump-Era Trade Rules**
Atlantic Container Line (ACL), a U.S.-based ocean carrier, is grappling with an estimated $34 million annual tariff bill following abrupt changes to Section 301 trade fees under the Trump administration’s U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) program. The sudden reclassification of ACL’s vessels as roll-on/roll-off (Ro/Ro) carriers—despite their primary role in transporting containers—has left the company in financial distress and raised concerns about the broader impact on U.S. trade.
The fees, which took effect on October 14, 2025, were initially designed to target Chinese trade practices under Section 301, a provision allowing the U.S. to retaliate against foreign trade barriers. However, ACL’s unique fleet configuration has made it an unintended casualty. The carrier’s vessels carry 80% standard shipping containers, 10% roll-on/roll-off freight (such as tractors, construction equipment, and passenger cars), and 10% oversized cargo like aircraft wings and power plant machinery. Despite this, the USTR reclassified the ships under Ro/Ro categories, triggering a fee structure based on net tonnage rather than the number of vehicles transported.
**A "Bureaucratic Blind Spot"**
ACL CEO Andrew Abbott described the shift as a "bureaucratic blind spot." While 80% of the company’s cargo is containerized, the USTR’s classification system prioritizes a vessel’s construction over its operational use. "Traditional Ro/Ro ships look like floating parking garages; we do not," Abbott told CNBC. He emphasized that only 1% of ACL’s Ro/Ro freight consists of passenger cars, yet the company is now charged the same fees as dedicated vehicle carriers.
The new rules have forced ACL to pay $1.4 million per vessel annually, with five ships in its U.S. trade fleet, totaling $7 million per year. However, Abbott argues the true cost is far higher. "We’re looking at $34 million a year," he said, noting that the fees are compounded by existing tariffs and rising operational costs.
**Impact on U.S. Trade and Manufacturing**
The financial strain could force ACL to relocate its operations, disrupting supply chains for American manufacturers and exporters. Abbott highlighted the company’s role in facilitating critical cargo, such as moving a major car manufacturer’s assembly line from Germany to Kentucky. "We moved their containers of parts and big machines. They didn’t have to charter a ship," he said. "That’s a unique service that would disappear."
Importers and exporters, already burdened by tariffs, are now facing additional uncertainty. "They’re incredulous," Abbott said. "They never thought we’d be affected. This is another straw that’s going to break the camel’s back."
**USTR Defends Classification Rules**
The USTR maintains that its fee structure is based on a vessel’s "International Classification of Ships by Type" (ICST) code, which reflects its construction characteristics rather than cargo mix. A spokesperson stated, "Vessels have long been required to report their ICST code to CBP. The USTR’s responsive action utilizes this existing reporting to determine applicability of service fees."
Abbott, however, disputes this, calling the policy "unfair." He pointed out that container ships ordered from China are exempt from fees, while large Ro/Ro carriers can spread costs across their fleets. "We only have 1% of our ship with cars, yet we’re hit with the full costs," he said. "We’re the only carrier with an HQ in the U.S."
**A Fight for Survival**
With the USTR showing no signs of revising the rules, Abbott is considering a potential exit from the U.S. market. "If the situation remains the same, we have to start seriously looking next year about redeploying," he warned. The move would not only end ACL’s 50-year history of serving the Atlantic trade lane but also leave U.S. businesses without a critical logistics partner.
As the company prepares to escalate its appeal, the case underscores the unintended consequences of trade policies and the challenges faced by niche carriers in a rapidly evolving global supply chain. For now, ACL remains in a precarious position, balancing the survival of its business against the broader implications for American commerce.