Trade & Customs Oct 16, 2026 · 7 min read

FMC proposes $200,000-per-voyage fee on Spanish ships and curbs on Spanish imports

The US wants $200,000 a voyage from Spanish ships. Watch the olive oil. On 14 October the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proposed a $200,000 fee every time a Spanish-flagged ship enters a US port. The reason: Spain refused port access to US-flagged Maersk ships in November 2024. Our view: the ship fee is a signal, because few Spanish-flagged vessels call at US ports. The real lever is a proposed limit on about $3.1 billion a year of Spanish goods, including $836.9 million of olive oil. Comments close on 14 December. We expect Spain to request a hearing before that date and no final rule before end of March 2027.

The $200,000 ship fee is the headline. The $3.1 billion goods list is the story.
On Wednesday 14 October the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proposed charging $200,000 every time a Spanish-flagged ship enters a US port. In the same notice it proposed limiting US imports of five groups of Spanish goods: perfumery and cosmetics, oils and fats, ceramics, articles of stone, and sugar and confectionery.
The FMC is the US agency that regulates ocean shipping in US foreign trade. Its notice points to a 1997 case against Japan as the precedent.
Our view is simple. The ship fee will raise little money and change few voyages. The goods list is the part with teeth. Importers of Spanish olive oil, tiles and perfume, and the forwarders who move them, should start planning now, even though nothing is in force yet.

What the FMC found

The investigation opened in December 2024. It covers ships in the Maritime Security Program, a US scheme that pays US-flagged commercial ships to stay available for military sealift.
The FMC’s announcement says: “The FMC’s investigation found conclusive evidence that Spain denied U.S.-flagged vessels access to its ports”. It adds that “These unfavorable conditions have grave consequences for the efficiency and reliability” of the shipping supply chain.
Baird Maritime sets out the incidents. Spain refused entry to the Maersk Denver and Maersk Seletar in November 2024. Later that month, the Maersk Hartford did not make a planned call at a Spanish port. gCaptain reports that the refusals were linked to military cargo bound for Israel, which Spain was blocking.
The FMC’s notice in the Federal Register also shows how the trade has moved. Before November 2024, Maersk Line Limited (the US-flag arm of Maersk) averaged 7.25 port calls a month in Spain. In 2026 it has made only six Spanish calls. Since July 2025 its calls at Tangier, Morocco, across the Strait of Gibraltar from Algeciras, have averaged 4.17 a month. In plain terms, US-flag transshipment has left Algeciras for Tangier.
Spain’s defence, as the FMC summarises it, is that it must follow Spanish, EU and international law, which bars the transit of defence and dual-use goods, and that it applies these rules regardless of a ship’s flag. Spain also argued that “the Commission does not have jurisdiction over Spain given sovereign immunity” and that diplomacy through the State Department is the proper route. The FMC rejected both points. It also said the wider dispute over Israel “is not part of this investigation”, Seatrade Maritime reports. Seatrade adds that the investigation drew 8,000 comments, many of them citing Spain’s policy on Israel.

Why the ship fee is mostly a signal

The fee is $200,000 per voyage. The FMC says this is roughly the 1997 Japan fee of $100,000, adjusted for inflation. Baird Maritime reports that the legal ceiling is $2,364,503 per voyage, so the FMC has chosen a figure well below its maximum.
The key line is the FMC’s own admission: “there are relatively few Spanish-flagged vessels that call at U.S. ports.” The notice gives no count. A fee on a small number of calls will not move freight rates or schedules on the Spain–US trade in any way a shipper would notice.
That is why we read the fee as a signal. It is cheap for the FMC to impose and easy for Spain to absorb. It shows Washington is serious without doing much harm.

Why the goods list matters

The goods list is a different scale. The FMC’s notice gives 2025 US import values from Spain for each group:

Oils and fats (HTS chapter 15): $1.15 billion, including $836.9 million of olive oil

Perfumery and cosmetics (chapter 33): nearly $940 million, of which nearly $700 million is perfumes and toilet waters

Ceramics (chapter 69): $634.7 million, of which $523.7 million is ceramic tiles

Articles of stone (chapter 68): $270.6 million

Sugar and confectionery (chapter 17): $138.8 million

HTS means the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, the US list of product codes used at customs. gCaptain puts the total at about $3.1 billion.
The notice is not a straightforward ban. It says the FMC “proposes to limit imports into the United States of some or all categories of Spanish goods.” The draft rule would let the FMC ask the Department of Homeland Security to detain ships carrying covered goods. A ship that unloads covered goods could be refused clearance until it reloads them. The FMC calls the list a proposal and says it may pick narrower, targeted limits.
There is also an escalation clause. If the FMC finds that US carriers or shippers face discriminatory or retaliatory measures from Spain in response, the draft raises the vessel fee and adds more tariff chapters. The FMC notes that only two Spanish import groups topped $1 billion, retail medicines and static converters and transformers, and that it left both out because of health needs and a transformer shortage. In our view they are the obvious next step if this escalates.

What happened last time

The 1997 Japan case is the best guide, and the FMC cites it. On 4 September 1997 the FMC imposed fines of $100,000 per voyage on three Japanese lines, NYK, Mitsui O.S.K. and “K” Line, after Japan failed to keep commitments to open up its port practices, the Virginian-Pilot reported at the time. The lines did not pay $4 million that fell due. The FMC then approved an order banning their ships from US ports, which the Coast Guard was to enforce.
Hours before the ban was due to take effect, the two governments announced an agreement in principle. The FMC suspended its order. US Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat called it a “breakthrough which we hope will lead to meaningful reform of these restrictive, costly and prohibitive port practices.”
The FMC’s new notice says the same remedies “led to a bilateral resolution” with Japan. So the playbook is clear: set a credible threat, let the deadline do the work, settle at the last moment.
The difference this time is the subject. Japan’s dispute was about stevedoring rules, which could be fixed with a deal. Spain’s position rests on its arms policy toward Israel and on EU law. That is much harder to trade away. Spain is also an EU member, and trade policy is run from Brussels. Any limit on Spanish olive oil or tiles is, in practice, a limit on EU exports, and the European Commission would be under pressure to respond.

What forwarders and shippers should do now

Nothing is in force. Comments close on 14 December 2026 under docket FMC-2026-0463 on Regulations.gov, and Spain may ask for a hearing. After that the FMC must review comments and issue a final rule. The draft gives no effective date.
Still, a few things are worth doing this quarter:

Map exposure by HTS chapter. Pull 2025–26 entries for chapters 15, 17, 33, 68 and 69 of Spanish origin. Ceramic tiles, olive oil and fragrance are the big lines.

Talk to importers about timing. Q1 2027 orders of Spanish tiles or olive oil carry a small but real risk of hold-ups at entry. Some buyers may want to bring shipments forward or line up other origins, such as Italy, Portugal or Turkey for tiles and olive oil.

Check routings. The FMC’s call data shows US-flag cargo already moving via Tangier instead of Algeciras. Mixed cargo on US-flag or US-government programmes should not assume a Spanish transshipment.

Watch for EU retaliation. The escalation clause means a European response could widen the list. That could pull in medicines and electrical equipment, which are much bigger trades.

Consider commenting. Importers with heavy Spanish exposure can file on the docket. A clear account of supply-chain harm is exactly what the FMC says may lead it to narrow the list.

Our prediction

We expect Spain to request a hearing before the 14 December deadline, and the European Commission to make a formal objection within the same window. We do not expect a final rule before the end of March 2027.
If a final rule comes, we expect the ship fee to survive as written and the goods list to shrink, with olive oil and ceramic tiles the most likely to stay on it, because they are the largest and most visible Spanish exports. We put the odds of a 1997-style late settlement lower than last time, because Spain’s stance is tied to its Israel policy and EU law, not to port rules it can simply rewrite.

Sources