The U.S. just charged high charges on Chinese ships, and the French Air Force turned to hand over a $300 million shipbuilding order to India, a move that is delicate in the context of the Chinese-American role.
The Trump administration has reopened the 301 investigation, pointing to the state-supported policy of China's shipbuilding industry, believing that this has led to the loss of orders from U.S. shipyard and the decline of the industry. As a result, the United States imposed a "user fee" on ships controlled or built by China: US$50 per net ton in the first year, gradually increased over four years, and eventually reaching US$100 per ton.
On the surface, this is an attempt to "realize the name of the shipbuilding industry in our country", but the reality is not so simple. The problem of the U.S. shipbuilding industry has long been not solved by point tariffs. Since the end of the last century, the U.S. market share in the construction of large commercial vessels has continued to decline, mainly due to the high cost and the serious shortage of the industrial chain.
Data shows that the cost of building a 10,000-ton-class container ship in the United States is five times that of China, and the delivery time is longer. Even with subsidies, buyers are difficult to pay for.
Coal companies such as Xcoal are concerned about losing international competitiveness after the cost transfer, and the oil and gas industry also faces the risk of rising costs and losing market share.
This policy was intended to be a “shuttle factory”, but the reality is that it first hurt its own exporters and then pressed the consumer wallet. The trade protectionism calculator, sounded, but landed very low. Global shipping companies see clearly that the rules of the market do not recognize emotions and do not give way to politics.
France's CMA Aircraft switch to India, is it a safe-haven layout or an industrial shift?
On the fourth day after the implementation of the New Deal in the United States, France's CMA CGM announced that it would hand over orders for six 1,700 TEU LNG-powered container ships to India's Cochin Shipyard, totaling US $300 million. This decision immediately attracted market attention. Some people think that this is a signal that France "turns to India and no longer relies on China", while others speculate that this is a direct response to the tension between China and the United States.
But if you really say "taking sides", this order is more of a trade-off choice. CMA CGM's past orders were mainly concentrated in China and South Korea. China shipyards have significant advantages, especially in the field of medium-sized container ships.
But when ships built in China are labeled as "extra fees for entering U.S. ports," the risk factor naturally increases. However, orders from South Korean shipyards have been scheduled beyond 2028. The price is not cheap and the delivery schedule is not flexible. American shipyards are simply not feasible to undertake this ship type.
In this context, India has become a "new option" for CMA CGM. On the one hand, the Indian government has vigorously promoted the development of its shipbuilding industry in recent years, not only increasing infrastructure, but also introducing tax and financing incentives.
On the other hand, the Kochin shipyard, although previously predominantly based on warships and tankers, has a certain infrastructure and technology accumulation, and is willing to test water at a relatively low price.
This order is more like a "strategic test": it not only avoids possible future cost risks between the United States and Hong Kong, but also lays the groundwork for long-term cooperation in the context of global supply chain diversification. France's CMA CGM is not really "abandoning China", but trying a new path and reducing the risk of single dependence under the current situation.
It should be clear that the current global market share of Indian shipbuilding is less than 1%, supply chain, technical reserves, and delivery capabilities are still in the initial stage.This order is more like a "capability test", can it be opened, depending on whether India can fill the industrial chain shortcomings, rather than a single deal can "change the road over the car."
Global shipping routes are restructured, and China's shipbuilding advantages remain solid
Despite the fact that France’s Dauphine transfer has sparked a heated debate, it does not mean that China’s shipbuilding industry has suffered a fundamental turmoil.In the three quarters before 2025, China’s new ship orders exceeded 15 million load-tons, and container ships accounted for more than 40 percent, remaining steadily at the top of the global shipbuilding market.
In the face of the shock of the new U.S. regime, Chinese enterprises did not fall into passivity, but quickly adjusted the market layout. Shipping giants such as Maersk have shipped 20 Chinese-made ships from the U.S. line to Asian and European routes, while starting to lease part of South Korea's shipbuilding resources to avoid policy risks. More shipping companies have begun to re-planning routes and will shift their operations to emerging markets such as Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia.
China's ports are also accelerating their transformation. In the first half of 2025, more than half of the new international routes added to ports such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou will point to emerging regions. The growth rate of trade with Africa, Central Asia and other places is obvious, showing that China's dependence on traditional western markets is gradually decreasing.
In terms of green ship types, China shipyards have also begun to accelerate their transformation. The world's first methanol-powered 14000TEU container ship delivered by Hudonghua marks that China's technical reserves in the field of clean energy ships have entered a mature period. This type of high value-added and differentiated ship type is the key to the next round of order competition.
Despite the challenges of local order transfers in the short term, China’s shipbuilding advantages are not just in price, but in a complete support system, mature technical workers and stable delivery capabilities.
Beyond the “station” more realistic is the “stable”.
The global shipping industry is not a black and white battlefield. CMA CGM's order landing in India does not mean that it "deviates" from China, nor is it necessarily a "response" to US policy. A more accurate understanding is that enterprises are looking for more flexible ways to deal with fluctuations in the global supply chain.
Over the past few years, epidemics, geo-conflicts and energy crises have impacted the global logistics system, and enterprises have faced increasing uncertainty.In this context, the risk of dependence on a single country has increased and supply chain diversification has become a strategic consensus.
Global shipping companies such as Dauphine France, Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping have deployed several production and construction sites to try to reduce volatility in the change.
This kind of diversification is not "abandoning the old and welcoming the new". China remains one of the most competitive shipbuilding countries in the world and remains an irreplaceable partner for most shipping companies. The adjustment of orders is a natural response under market mechanisms, rather than a one-way vote of geopolitics.
For India, this order receipt is a "window period". Whether this opportunity can be transformed into industrial upgrading depends on whether it can make up for the gap between technology and efficiency in addition to policies. Otherwise, there may not be a renewal order after an order.
For the United States, if it wants to really revitalize the shipbuilding industry, restricting others and increasing charges will ultimately cure the symptoms rather than the root cause. The top priority is to rebuild the industrial chain and improve efficiency, instead of expecting the global market to revolve around domestic prices.
France's CMA CGM order falling to India seems like a "variable" in the Sino-US game, but in the final analysis, it is the result of the trade-off between cost, risk and delivery of global shipping companies. It's not whose side you stand, but on the side where your own interests are the most stable.
This chain reaction caused by policies not only exposes the fragility of the industrial structure, but also reminds countries that what really determines competitiveness is not policy barriers, but industrial capabilities.
Source of information:
Report on China's shipbuilding subsidies in 2025
Content: Alleged that China affected the global shipbuilding market through state subsidies, decided to implement measures to levy fees on Chinese-funded ships in accordance with Article 301 of the Trade Law of 1974
Official announcement of CMA CGM 18 October 2025
Contents: Order of 6 1700TEU LNG-powered container vessels for Cochin Shipyard in India