Plaintiff shipowner built a pair of double-trawl fishing ships and instructed the captain of the first ship and the captain of the last ship to drive the first and last ships respectively to carry out illegal fishing. Subsequently, the shipowner and others illegal fishing aquatic products by Defendant first detachment of the marine police according to law criminal case, the ship driven by the captain of the first ship on the same day was criminally detained, the shipowner and the two captains of the ship was judged of illegal fishing of aquatic products crime criminal judgment according to law by the court. The court recommended that the first detachment of the marine police forfeited the seized ship. The first detachment of marine police received the case, informed the shipowner according to the procedures, and in the subsequent investigation, reviewed and verified the ship certificates and materials provided by the shipowner, and determined that the ship certificates did not match with the ship certificates of the ship involved. Therefore, according to the Regulations on the Administration of Public Security in Frontier Vessels Article 30 and the Announcement on the Checking and the Banning of Ships with “Three Noes” Article 3, a penalty decision was made, deciding to confiscate the “Three Noes” fishing ship headboat of the owner, which had been seized according to the law. The shipowner did not accept the administrative penalty decision, applied to Defendant border guards for administrative reconsideration, the border guards maintained the first detachment of marine police administrative penalty decision. Plaintiff did not accept the reconsideration decision, filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) the first detachment of marine police administrative penalty had correct law applied. Because the Announcement on the Checking and the Banning of Ships with “Three Noes” belonged to the current effective administrative regulations, the right to set the confiscation of property penalties, and the Regulations on the Administration of Public Security in Frontier Vessels was the ministry of public security departmental regulations, the administrative penalty based on article 30 for the citation of the provisions, not to set up penalties for the setting of the provisions. The Announcement on the Checking and the Banning of Ships with “Three Noes” should be used as the basis for the trial. (2) The punishment imposed by the first detachment of marine police was not improper. According to the Announcement on the Checking and the Banning of Ships with “Three Noes”, ships without ship name and number, without ship certificate and without port of registry were “Three Noes” ships. The ship involved had no ship name, no ship certificate and no port of registry, and the main equipment on board had no nameplate, which belongs to “Three Noes” ships. After inspection, it was impossible to prove that the certificate provided by the shipowner was the certificate of the ship involved, therefore, the first detachment of the marine police determined that the facts of the administrative penalty were clear. In addition, the administrative penalty procedure was legal and did not violate the interests of the shipowner. (3) After the General Border Guard accepted the application for reconsideration, the reconsideration procedure was lawful, the applicable law was correct, and the facts were found to be clear.