A fishing operator cleared of fuel smuggling has successfully challenged the seizure of his fishing vessel by customs authorities before the court of appeal, which also suggested amending the current legal scenario. 

Paul Piscopo, owner of the trawler MFV Alexandra I, together with his wife Alexandra, had filed an application before the civil courts requesting the release of their vessel seized by customs in 2009.

The vessel had been purchased from Egypt, setting sail for Malta with 25,000 litres of diesel on board.

Yet, after reaching home port with some 17,000 litres of fuel, its owners realised the boat needed maintenance and repair works, including welding in the engine room.

So they began to empty the fuel tanks, intending to use the fuel in another fishing vessel.

But their plans went awry when customs officers stopped the driver of a box van transporting six 1,000-litre tanks of fuel from the Alexandra I to the other fishing boat. 

Both the van driver as well as Piscopo were subsequently acquitted of fuel smuggling and failing to pay customs duty on the illegally imported diesel.

Piscopo’s acquittal was confirmed on appeal last July and a copy of that judgment was presented in civil proceedings seeking to obtain the release of the trawler targeted by a seizure note issued by the controller (now director-general) of customs. 

On Wednesday, the court of appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, overturned the decision of the First Hall, Civil Court observing that in the criminal proceedings there had been no evidence that Piscopo intended to sell the fuel or make a profit. 

Since it was shown that he had intended to use the diesel in another vessel “for fishing purposes” customs duty was nil in terms of law.

Although civil and criminal proceedings were separate, for the sake of legal certainty, the court concluded that since customs duty was not due, the vessel and fuel were not subject to seizure. 

Such seizure, were it to be confirmed, would result in a permanent and excessive measure, effectively depriving the owner of property that would be transferred to the government.

While upholding the appeal, the court observed that it was time for the legislator to amend the law so that such issues concerning seizure of property are settled in the course of the criminal process without owners having to resort to a separate civil action to claim back possession. 

For this reason, the court ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Minister for Justice.

Lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt assisted the appellants.