The director of a fishing company has failed in his attempt to challenge the seizure of one of his vessels, along with over 34,000 litres of gas oil, intercepted at sea by the Armed Forces eight years ago.

Paul Piscopo, as director of Dimitra Fishing Company Limited, along with his wife Alexandra, had put up a legal challenge to the seizure of one of their vessels, the MFV Dimitra, which had been intercepted by an AFM patrol some 24 nautical miles off Delimara Point.

The incident dated back to May 2013 when the AFM were alerted to the fact that the vessel’s monitoring system was switched off.

The Dimitra was intercepted and customary pre-boarding question were relayed to its crew via the VHF system.

But when those questions went unanswered, AFM personnel boarded the fishing vessel, spotting several 1000-litre plastic tanks on deck, filled with yellow and red liquid that was certainly “not water,” an AFM officer subsequently testified.

That liquid turned out to be gas oil and the vessel also had a “flow meter” used to transfer fuel, whilst no fishing equipment appeared in sight.

Lack of a satisfactory explanation as to the origin of that fuel by the captain, besides the fact that the fishing licence was expired, aroused suspicion of some underhand criminal activity.

The Dimitra was ordered to sail back to Maltese port for further investigation and was consequently targeted by a seizure note issued by Customs authorities, as was the 34,600 litres of gas oil on board allegedly in breach of customs and excise duty laws.

A chemical expert later confirmed that all fuel on board the Dimitra, including that used to operate its engines, could not have originated from a legally-approved source since it lacked the Sudan Marker certifying the fuel as duty-free, nor the National Marker proving that duty had been paid.

While criminal proceedings continued against the crew, the Piscopo couple filed a civil suit against the Director General of Customs, challenging the seizure of their property and claiming that they used the vessel to earn a living through fishing.

As for the excessive amount of gas oil on board, Piscopo claimed that vessels needed to stock up on fuel before the tuna fishing season kicked off, in preparation for two-month fishing trips.

And no permit from Customs was needed for that, the applicant argued further.

But his claims were thrown out by the First Hall, Civil Court in 2017, prompting an appeal.

Meanwhile, the Dimitra was released to its operator in exchange for two bank drafts in favour of customs, while the dispute continued at appeal stage.

Final judgment was delivered this week by the Court of Appeal presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Mr Justices Joseph R. Micallef and Tonio Mallia, whereby the appellants’ claims were again rejected.

Upon the evidence put forward the court concluded that there had been reasonable suspicion for the AFM patrol squad to stop the vessel and order it back to port.

Their actions were “strictly according to law, the court held.

On the other hand, the appellants failed to prove authorization or lawful exemption of the fuel on board their vessel, nor satisfactory proof as to the lawful origin of that fuel.

Arguing that no criminal action had been taken against the couple, as owners of the vessel, but only against the captain and his crew, was not a valid argument in this case which stemmed purely from the seizure of the vessel itself and its load of fuel.

Another court expert had reported that “Findings indicate that the vessel had been set up to deliver diesel to third parties….there was no sign that fishing activity was carried out recently.”

No such commercial activity could be undertaken without the relative licence and therefore the seizure had been justified, as had been the order by the first court for the Police Commissioner to investigate.

The seal of the vessel’s monitoring system was found to have been broken and the system switched off.

The captain could offer no explanation, the court observed.

Moreover, a parallel sought by the appellants to another case where they had successfully challenged the seizure of another of their vessels, the Alexandra I, did not stand in this case.

In that case, they had proved that the suspicious fuel was needed for another fishing vessel but that was certainly not the case in respect of the Dimitra, observed the court, thus confirming the seizure of the bank drafts in favour of customs authorities.