Federal Attorneys File Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case

Attorneys for the United States have filed their brief in the matter of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of State; Assistant Secretary of State, Educational and Cultural Affairs. The United States’ brief rejects the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s (ACCG) interpretation and application of the Cultural Property Act (CPIA), writing that the ACCG “fundamentally misunderstands the CPIA’s statutory scheme.”

Last September the ACCG appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court after a federal district court judge dismissed its test case. The group initially filed the lawsuit hoping to challenge cultural heritage import protections enacted under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). According to the government’s brief, “[o]n April 15, 2009, [the ACCG] transported [Chinese and Cypriot] coins from London to Baltimore with the intention of testing the validity of existing import restrictions. The invoice accompanying the coins identified each by type and indicated that each was minted in China or Cyprus, but provided no indication of when the coins first arrived in London (or any other information regarding the history of the coins).” Customs seized the ancient coins. The district court then struck down the ACCG’s challenge to the seizure after concluding that the group failed to make out a sufficient case to show that the government acted outside its legal authority.

The ACCG filed an appellate brief with the federal circuit court on October 31, 2011, arguing that the enactment and application of the import controls by the State Department and/or Customs and Border Protection (CPB) was unlawful and should be reviewed under the standards of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  (The APA is the law that instructs federal agencies about how they must establish administrative regulations.  The Act also outlines the procedures by which administrative decisions are reviewed by the courts.) The ACCG also argued in its brief that the United States government could not issue cultural property import protections on certain ancient coins since China allegedly did not request the import restrictions.  The group further explained that the CPIA’s import controls require federal officials to prove an ancient coin’s find spot before it can be seized. The United States’appellate brief, filed on January 13, 2012, counters these claims.

Attorneys for the United States contend in their brief that its agencies followed the rules while the ACCG did not follow the process.  The government's lawyers write that the ACCG should have followed the forfeiture process established by Congress.  Instead, the ACCG filed a lawsuit. “The CPIA’s provisions regarding seizure and forfeiture, in concert with the pre-existing statutory scheme addressing forfeiture proceedings, set forth a process by which claimants may contest a threatened forfeiture,” the government argues. Federal lawyers state that the “APA authorizes judicial review of agency action only ‘for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’ The circumstances in which extra-statutory review is available are similarly limited.  Here, however, Congress has expressly provided for challenges to the seizure and forfeiture of materials under the CPIA through the established mechanism of administrative or judicial forfeiture proceedings.”

At the time of the attempted import of the coins in Baltimore, lawyers for the United States say that “Customs provided [the ACCG] with the opportunity to present a certification of lawful export or other evidence establishing a right to entry . . . . [but the ACCG] disclaimed any ability to present such evidence.  On July 20, 2009, Customs seized the coins, and explained that – in light of [the ACCG’s] representations – the items would be subject to summary forfeiture absent a request by plaintiff for judicial proceedings.”  Government lawyers say that even though the ACCG requested a judicial forfeiture proceeding in September 2009, “Plaintiff [ACCG] did not await the commencement of judicial forfeiture proceedings by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.  Rather, on February 11, 2010 – five months after requesting such proceedings – plaintiff commenced this suit to challenge the seizure of its ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins.”  The government observes that “Plaintiff [ACCG] has invoked those procedures, but they have not occurred as this litigation has been ongoing. Plaintiff does not explain why its arguments should not be considered in the forum designated by Congress.”

Had the ACCG challenged the seizure of the coins through the congressionally prescribed forfeiture proceeding, it would have confronted a defined standard of proof requiring the ACCG to show that the coins were legal to import. The government’s brief describes the standard of proof that applies in a forfeiture proceeding: “the government must establish that the seized property is material that has been designated as restricted under [the CPIA].  After this initial showing, the burden shifts to the claimant [ACCG] to show that the property is not subject to forfeiture, or to establish an applicable affirmative defense.”

The United States rebukes the ACCG for short-circuiting the judicial forfeiture proceeding, avoiding its burden of proof, and claiming that the government acted beyond its authority (i.e. ultra vires).  The government contends that the “Plaintiff [ACCG] cannot properly circumvent the statutory scheme established by Congress by asking a district court to review this seizure under the APA and under the rubric of ultra vires review and . . . to further confound Congress’s intent by asking the court to disregard the burden of proof established by the CPIA.”

Attorneys for the United States further maintain that the ACCG has confused the meaning and requirements of the CPIA. They point out that “[t]o import the coins into the United States, plaintiff [ACCG] needed only to show that the coins had left Cyprus or China before the effective dates of the relevant Designated Lists.  Plaintiff declined to offer any declaration to that effect, claiming that it could not offer the evidence required by the statute because it did not know whether the coins had been ‘first found in the ground’ of either China or Cyprus. But the CPIA quite plainly does not require plaintiff to know where the coins were ‘first found in the ground’; all that was required was information as to the whereabouts of the Cypriot coins as of July 16, 2007 and of the Chinese coins as of January 16, 2009.”

The government's lawyers pointedly draw attention to the fact that the President exercises his foreign affairs powers when acting pursuant to the CPIA. The attorneys highlight that “[t]he provisions of the CPIA confirm that Congress recognized that these judgments are imbued with foreign policy concerns.” They describe how “[t]he CPIA provides the President with broad power to apply import restrictions pursuant to MOUs he enters into with foreign States in furtherance of the United States’s obligations under the Convention on Cultural Property and with the goal of ‘promoting U.S. leadership[] in the preservation of cultural treasures.’” The attorneys point out that “Congress recognized that allowing illicitly excavated and trafficked artifacts to enter into the United States, thereby permitting a market in such goods, threatened our relationships with other nations, and that this legislation was thus “‘important to our foreign relations.’” They also explain that “the issues raised by the import of cultural goods are ‘distinct from the normal concerns of the reciprocal trade agreements program or U.S. trade law.’”

The review of American foreign policy decisions by the courts essentially would be improper, suggests the brief, particularly where foreign policy considerations have other avenues of oversight.  “Rather than involve the courts in an inquiry into the conduct of foreign affairs, Congress provided for political review by requiring the CPAC [Cultural Property Advisory Committee] to share its reports with Congress, and requiring the President to report actions taken to Congress,” says the government’s brief.

Federal lawyers contend that even if there is court review of the government’s implementation of import restrictions enacted under the CPIA, government agencies acted properly. Their brief asserts that “[i]f the Court concludes that some form of judicial review is nevertheless appropriate in these proceedings, it should affirm the district court’s conclusion that plaintiff has not stated a viable claim.”

In support of this argument, attorneys for the United States point out that the ACCG’s “primary contention is that its 22 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins were unlawfully seized based on their ‘type.’ Plaintiff urges that, although the coins appear on the Designated Lists of restricted materials published by Customs, the coins must be allowed entry to the United States unless the government can prove, on a coin by coin basis, that each was first unearthed in Cyprus or China. The district court correctly concluded that plaintiff’s proposed scheme lacks any basis in the statute.”  Therefore, the federal lawyers maintain that “[t]he Assistant Secretary [of State] exercised her judgment and discretion under the CPIA in determining that certain types of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins qualify as the ‘archaeological material of the State Party’ and applying import restrictions to them. As the district court concluded, plaintiff’s approach can not (sic) be reconciled with the plain terms of the Act, is unworkable, and ‘would undermine the core purpose of the CPIA.’”

Attorneys for the United States also address in their brief the ACCG’s request for information.  “[The ACCG’s] amended complaint alleged that ‘China never formally requested import restrictions on coins,’ and urged that the government’s restrictions on Chinese coins should thus be deemed invalid. This is unsurprising, since – as the government has previously noted – China’s request did, in fact, address ancient Chinese coins, as noted in the public summary of the request that is posted on the State Department’s website.”  That said, federal lawyers declare that “the district court correctly rejected plaintiff’s request for discovery with regard to the precise contents of China’s diplomatic note requesting that the United States impose import restrictions under Article 9 of the Convention on Cultural Property. The United States has met all of its statutory obligations, and is not required to make such information public."

Finally, the government addresses the constitutional issues raised by the ACCG: “Plaintiff asserts that the import restrictions at issue 'impinge on collectors’ access to information materials' in a 'grossly overbroad' manner and are thus 'constitutionally suspect under both the First and Fifth Amendments.' Contrary to plaintiff’s characterization, the CPIA does not ban the sale of ancient coins or prevent individuals from accessing the information they offer. Rather, the [CPIA] allows the importation of the designated coins when particular requirements, which are designed to prevent the illicit trafficking of ancient artifacts that are under threat from pillage or looting, are satisfied. It is contrary to no recognized constitutional interest."

[Note: All quotes are from the government's appellate brief.  Citations in the original have been omitted.]

Contact: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Documentary - "Fighting Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in South Eastern Europe"

UNESCO has produced the short documentary below titled "Fighting Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in South Eastern Europe."  The report is especially relevant as the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) this month considers requests by Bulgaria and Cyprus for cultural property protections under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Comments Submitted to CPAC in Cyprus and Peru MoU Extension Requests

Kourion, Cyprus. Mosaic from the house of Eustolios.
Source: Lapost. CC.

Comments have been submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) regarding an extension of the cultural property Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between Cyprus and the United States as well as Peru and the United States.  The original MoUs authorized by the Cultural Property Implementation Act lasted for five years and placed import restrictions on designated archaeological and ethnological material.  There were a total of 336 comments electronically submitted to the State Department regarding Cyprus’ request and 23 comments regarding Peru’s request.

A sampling of the comments submitted in support of Peru’s request were published in a prior post.  Comments regarding the Cypriot request appear below.

Writing in support of Cyprus’ request for an extension of the MoU, Professor A. Bernard Knapp, Honorary Research Fellow at the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute remarked:

“As a retired archaeologist . . . I am keenly aware of the importance of this MoU, which prevents archaeological objects from categories described in the Designated List from enter the US unless they have an export permit issued by the Government of the Republic Cyprus, or documentation that they left Cyprus prior to the effective date of the restriction. In my view, this MoU represents one of the most important documents protecting a country’s indigenous cultural heritage that the US has ever approved; it is an extremely significant tool in Cyprus’s efforts to prevent and combat the looting of its cultural heritage and the illicit trafficking of Cypriot antiquities to the United States, which has one of largest art markets for such antiquities in the world.”

“Signed originally in 2002, amended in 2006 to include Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials, and renewed in 2007 to include Cypriot coins (end of 6^th century BC to AD 235, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus now requests another amendment, to include Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials representing the post-Byzantine period dating up to AD 1850. They do so in order to assure a coherent legal framework in line with the Cyprus’s Antiquities Law. This request is based on numerous recent cases involving the illicit trafficking of ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological material that dates later than AD 1500.”

Elizabeth Bartman, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, also wrote in support of the MoU renewal:

“The archaeological evidence from such Bronze Age towns as Kourion [in Cyprus] attest to an active trade and a high level of technical production of ceramics, metal, and stone sculpture.  Unfortunately, many of these distinctive artifacts are much prized by collectors today; the ravaging of the island after the Turkish invasion in 1974 has long been recognized, but looting continues today with loose controls in the northern zone permitting the export of both archaeological and ecclesiastical material.  Because of their random findspots and portability, coins are especially vulnerable to looting and so deserve protection under the Memorandum.”

The comments opposing Cyprus’ request came from the ancient coin collecting community, which does not favor the inclusion of coins in any import protections.  For example, Philip Griest wrote:

“Coins and modern paper money have always been fluid currency. The exchange of money for goods and services internally and internationally has exsited since ancient times. To now require that a specific coin be repatriated because of it's artistic worth seems illogical if not illegal. The money belongs to the person that earned it and then, when spent, to the person who traded for it; no matter goods, services or an exchange of currency. To return such items to the nation that minted the coin is to restrict trade and create an illegal market for the coin. What else can be done to these thousands or hundred (sic) of thousands of coins and artifacts. They can't all end up in museums. Has comman (sic) sense ceased to exist in our nation.”

And Glenn Saylor, Jr. wrote:

“I am against import restrictions of Cypriot coins into the United States. There are a large number of collectors of these coins in the United States. We carefully conserve these coins for future generations, and share our knowledge about these coins with not only our fellow collectors, but also the general public. Most of these coins are common, so Cyprus should have little diificulty obtaining needed examples for their museums. Since these coins are so common, it is hard to establish their providence. The net effect is that these common coins will not be allowed import into the United States. All rebutable (sic) coin dealers and collectors are against the looting of archaeological sites. However, I believe other methods can be used to address this issue. For instance in Great Britian (sic), the Government has the first right to buy new coin finds at market price. If this policy was implimented (sic) in Cyprus, their Government would have the first opportunity to purchase any rare coins that were found.”

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

CPAC Will Meet to Consider MoU Extensions with Cyprus and Peru - Public Comments Period Open

Extensions of the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with Cyprus and Peru will be taken up by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) at their next meeting in Washington, DC.  A public session will be held on January 18, 2012 to consider extending the bilateral agreements the United States has with these nations, which implement US import protections covering jeopardized cultural property.

An MoU is enacted pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property).  The treaty is implemented in the US by the federal Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).  Import protections granted under the CPIA last for five years and may be renewed.

To attend the public session, reserve your place by calling  the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at (202) 632–6301 by 5 p.m. EST on January 3.

Byzantine bronze cross from Cyprus
subject to US import protections.
Source: US State Dept.

Public comments may be submitted electronically to CPAC.  Click here to comment on the Cyprus MoU extension, or here to comment on the Peru MoU extension.  Comments are due January 3 by the end of the day.  If you encounter any problems, visit the eRulemaking web site at http://www.regulations.gov/.  Enter docket number DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus or docket number DOS-2011-0136 for Peru and follow the instructions on the web site.  Be aware that the electronic submissions process sometimes can be cumbersome.  Comments may also be mailed to:

Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C)

SA-5, Fifth Floor

Department of State

Washington, DC 20522-0505

The comments must address one, some, or all of the four determinations outlined by the CPIA.  Quoting 19 USC 2602, the four determinations are:

(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;

(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;

(C) [whether] --

(i) the application of the import restrictions . . . with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention]) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and

(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and

(D) [whether] the application of the import restrictions . . . in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

ACCG Files Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case

Ancient Chinese Coins
Author mc559, Creative Commons

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) today filed an appellate brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. After setting up and losing a test case in the Maryland federal district court, the ACCG is now asking the appeals court to reverse that decision. The ACCG’s case began when it imported 23 Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins from a London dealer in 2009. The coins were brought to Baltimore in contravention of import protections enacted pursuant to the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).

The ACCG argues in its brief that the district court should have reviewed the decisions of the State Department and/or Customs and Border Protection to implement import protections under the Administrative Procedures Act. The APA is a seminal statute that describes how federal agencies shall establish administrative regulations and that outlines the procedures by which administrative decisions are reviewed by the courts. The ACCG argues that the decision of the Assistant Secretary [of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs] and/or US Customs and Border Protection approving import rules may be reviewed by a court under the Administrative Procedures Act. The lower court essentially argued that the President of the United States conducts foreign policy and that “primary responsibility for imposing cultural property import restrictions [rests] with the President, rather than with an agency.” It follows then that the APA cannot therefore be used to review an executive branch decision that is part of the President’s power to negotiate international agreements rather than part of an administrative decision of an agency. The lower court explained in its decision that “the State Department and Assistant Secretary were acting on behalf of the President, and therefore their actions are not reviewable under the APA. That conclusion is particularly justified here, because the Department and Assistant Secretary were acting in the realm of foreign affairs.”

The ACCG further argues that the district court erred when ruling that the government could issue cultural property import protections on coins without China purportedly requesting the import regulations. The appellate brief states that “[t]he District Court’s conclusion that ‘the CPIA does not require that a state party’s initial request include a detailed accounting of each item eventually covered by an [1970 UNESCO Convention] Article 9 agreement’ ignores the requirement that any request ‘must be accompanied by a written statement of the facts known to the State Party that relates to those matters with respect to which determinations must be made. . . .’” The lower court, in contrast, ruled that China’s request complied with the law, observing that “the CPIA [does not] require that the State Department publish verbatim the list of items requested to be restricted. Rather, it simply requires that a State Party make a ‘request . . . to the United States under article 9 of the [1970 UNESCO] Convention,’ . . . and ‘publish notification of the request . . . in the Federal Register.’ The notice published in the September 3, 2004, Federal Register demonstrates that such a request was made.”

Finally, the ACCG argues that the import regulations require federal authorities to prove that a particular coin was discovered in the modern nations of China or Cyprus before officials may seize the coins as contraband. The ACCG states in its appellate brief that “the CPIA itself only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts ‘first discovered within, and . . . subject to export control by’ the State Party seeking restrictions.” The brief adds that “[t]he Guild argued below that the Government could comply with this critical statutory requirement in either one of two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in Cyprus or China and, hence must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that the coins that CBP seized were in fact first discovered in Cyprus or China and are subject to export control by those countries.”

This argument was originally rejected by the federal district court. The lower court opinion remarked that “the dispute is limited to whether the State Department has authority under the CPIA to prohibit the importation of coins with unknown ‘find spots’ . . . .” The district court judge found that “ACCG’s argument misses the mark, for three principal reasons. First, the subsection imposing the “first discovered” requirement . . . is silent on how the government must establish, in the absence of a documented find spot, whether a particular object ‘was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party.’ Moreover, the CPIA anticipates that there may be some archaeological objects without precisely documented provenance and export records and prohibits the importation of those objects. . . . Thus for objects without documentation of where and when they were discovered, the CPIA expressly places the burden on importers to prove that they are importable, and prohibits the importation of those objects if they cannot meet that burden. Second, the CPIA anticipates that some categories of materials will be designated ‘by type or other appropriate classification.’ Congress apparently recognized that sometimes neither the requesting country nor the U.S. government will have enough information to list particular items with greater specificity than its “type.” . . . Third, interpreting the “first discovered in” requirement to preclude the State Department from barring the importation of archaeological objects with unknown find spots would undermine the core purpose of the CPIA, namely to deter looting of cultural property. . . . Looted objects are, presumably, extremely unlikely to carry documentation, or at least accurate documentation, of when and where they were discovered and when they were exported from the country in which they were discovered. Congress is therefore unlikely to have intended to limit import restrictions to objects with a documented find spot.” (Citations omitted).

A link to the brief appears courtesy of Peter Tompa, legal counsel for the ACCG: http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Appellant_Brief_filed_in_Cyprus_China_coin_seizure.aspx.

[UPDATE 1/18/12:  Federal attorneys have filed their appellate brief.]

_______________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

ACCG Files Notice of Appeal in Baltimore Coin Case

After having its case dismissed in August, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2011 in the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/11-2012/
A federal district court last month dismissed the ACCG's lawsuit, which challenged protective American import restrictions placed on Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins. The court ruled that the ACCG failed to make out a sufficient case. The ACCG started the test case when the organization brought 23 ancient coins to Baltimore on a transatlantic flight


Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Judge Dismisses ACCG Challenge to Cultural Property Import Protections - Acknowledges President's Foreign Policy Role in MoU Process

Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court of Maryland yesterday dismissed the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s lawsuit against the federal government. The federal district court decision essentially declared that the ACCG failed to make out a sufficient case.

The ACCG set up a test case to challenge protective American import restrictions placed on Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins when the organization imported 23 from a London dealer in 2009, bringing them to Baltimore on a British Airways flight. The enactment of the import protections followed the president’s adoption of bilateral agreements with China and Cyprus under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The CPIA is the law that implements in the United States the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

The court supplied a comprehensive 52 page memorandum outlining its reasons for dismissal. While many observations are worth noting, three are discussed here.

First, the ACCG’s challenge to the protective import restrictions failed to establish a meritorious legal claim on all counts. The court discharged the ACCG’s case in its entirety, even while assuming that the facts asserted by the organization in its legal complaint were true and construing any inferences in favor of the ACCG. The ACCG, naturally, may appeal but for now Judge Blake’s order stands: “[T]his case is dismissed; and . . . the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.”

Second, the court recognized that the negotiations and implementation of a bilateral agreement adopted under the CPIA involve the president’s broader role in foreign policymaking. A passage from Judge Blake’s memorandum is instructive:

“[W]hen those agencies [such as the State Department] act on behalf of the President, the separation of powers concerns ordinarily apply with full force—especially in an area as sensitive and complex as foreign affairs. As with respect to almost any international agreement, the decision whether to enter an Article 9 agreement [under the 1970 UNESCO Convention] with a particular country does not occur in a foreign policy vacuum. The decision necessarily will involve a variety of considerations beyond those set out in the CPIA, including the broader relationship between the United States and the requesting country and the potential impact of such an agreement on the United States’s relationships with other countries. Those considerations exist regardless of who ultimately negotiates and enters the agreement, the President or the Assistant Secretary [of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs] on the President’s behalf. Furthermore, by lodging primary responsibility for imposing cultural property import restrictions with the President, rather than with an agency, Congress likely recognized these separation-of-powers concerns. While the parties have not pointed to a conclusive explanation in the CPIA’s legislative history, Congress likely concluded that deference to the President was appropriate given the foreign policy considerations inherent in deciding whether to impose import restrictions.”

Finally, the court acknowledged the federal government’s authority to ban the importation of undocumented ancient coins. Judge Blake noted that the thrust of the CPIA is to mitigate the theft of cultural heritage. She intelligently observed that “[l]ooted objects are, presumably, extremely unlikely to carry documentation, or at least accurate documentation, of when and where they were discovered and when they were exported from the country in which they were discovered. Congress is therefore unlikely to have intended to limit import restrictions to objects with a documented find spot.” Judge Blake therefore concluded that “the import restrictions on Chinese and Cypriot coins, which have the effect of barring the importation of coins with unknown find spots, do not exceed the State Department’s authority under the CPIA.”