U.S. Port Security Fee Scheme

Maritime Reporter ^ | @3 July 2002 | Maritime Reporter

[habaes corpussel]

During a meeting of the Conference Committee that is attempting to draft a unified U.S. port and maritime security bill, it was proposed that a Port Security Fee be assessed to fund various port security initiatives. Fees on international cargo shipments would, under the scheme floated by Senator Hollings (D-SC), be $15 per regular TEU $20 per TEU containing HazMat $4 per vehicle $4 per passenger $.30 per metric ton of crude oil $.45 per metric ton of petroleum product $.50 per metric ton of chemical product $.60 per metric ton of liquid gases (LNG/LPG) $.02 per metric ton of dry bulk cargo $1 per metric ton of other cargo.

Based on calendar year 2000 data, this would collect approximately $692 million each year. The monies, to be collected by the Customs Service, would be deposited in a new Port Security Trust Fund. Half the monies would be allocated to ports for security enhancements. Of the remainder, 25 percent would be set aside for discretionary grants for protection of miscellaneous maritime assets and for shipper security programs and the other 25 percent would be available to generic security programs at the Maritime Administration, TSA, Customs, and the Coast Guard.

These generic programs would include credentialing, Sea Marshals, AIS implementation, R&D on seaport security technology, and cargo screening equipment. Source: HK Law

[habaes corpussel]

If you think we are only playing with Sky Marshals, try Sea Marshals as well. Now all these associated costs will be passed along to you know who. We the People.

[Shermy]

Hmmm... might be good for domestic industry.

[IncPen]

I think these 'blind taxes' or 'user fees' are the absolute worst form of taxation.

Since the fees are not levied on the providers but are passed on to the consumer, they become invisible, and thus, are unlikely to be challenged.

Would that someone actually had to account for these...

[GSWarrior]

Of the remainder, 25 percent would be set aside for discretionary grants for protection of miscellaneous maritime assets

Am I missing the boat or am I correct in assuming that this would mean more money for environuts?

[habaes corpussel]

"Am I missing the boat or am I correct in assuming that this would mean more money for environuts?"

No some of the monies may go for tugs and barges etc,,,,

[habaes corpussel]

"Since the fees are not levied on the providers but are passed on to the consumer, they become invisible, and thus, are unlikely to be challenged."

Get use to it we are going too see a lot of this crap going on.