Conditions for claims.

§ 33.7 Conditions for claims. (a) Unless there is clear and convincing credible evidence that the seizure did not meet the requirements of the Act, payment of claims will be made when: (1) A covered vessel is seized by a foreign country under conditions specified in the Act and the guaranty agreement; and (2) The incident occurred during the period the guaranty agreement was in force for the vessel involved. (b) Payments will be made to the owner for: (1) All actual costs (except those covered by section 3 of the Act or reimbursable from some other source) incurred by the owner during the seizure or detention period as a direct result thereof, including: (i) Damage to, or destruction of, the vessel or its equipment; or (ii) Loss or confiscation of the vessel or its equipment; and (iii) Dockage fees or utilities; (2) The market value of fish or shellfish caught before seizure of the vessel and confiscated or spoiled during the period of detention; and (3) Up to 50 percent of the vessel's gross income lost as a direct result of the seizure and detention. (c) The exceptions are that no payment will be made from the Fund for a seizure which is: (1) Covered by any other provision of law (for example, fines, license fees, registration fees, or other direct charges payable under section 3 of the Act); (2) Made by a country at war with the United States; (3) In accordance with any applicable convention or treaty, if that treaty or convention was made with the advice and consent of the Senate and was in force and effect for the United States and the seizing country at the time of the seizure; (4) Which occurs before the guaranty agreement's effective date or after its termination; (5) For which other sources of alternative reimbursement have not first been fully pursued (for example, the insurance coverage required by the agreement and valid claims under any law); (6) For which material requirements of the guaranty agreement, the Act, or the program regulations have not been fully fulfilled; or (7) In the view of the Department of State occurred because the seized vessel was undermining or diminishing the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States, or otherwise contributing to stock conservation problems pending the establishment of such measures.