Cultural property

Pages5-7
5
international law update Volume 19, January–March 2013
© 2013 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
CULTURAL PROPERTY
I     
  C O  
C  C P
I A (CPIA), F
C    
    
   
Based on the Convention on Cultural Property
Implementation Act (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. Sections
2601-2613, foreign countries can request that the
U.S. restrict the imports of certain articles of cultural
signicance.
In the following case, the Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild (“Guild”) unsuccessfully attempted
to import Chinese and Cypriot coins, and requested
a review of the implementation of the CPIA import
restrictions.
e CPIA is based on the international
“Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property” (“Convention”)
(November 14, 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231). Pursuant
to Article 9 of the Convention, a “State Party” can
request that other signatories protect the requesting
state’s cultural property from theft and illicit export.
Such steps include import and/or export controls.
Id. art. 9. e Convention denes the term “cultural
property” to include an array of items “of importance
for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or
science.” Id. art. 1.
To implement the Convention domestically,
Congress passed the CPIA in 1982, and President
Reagan signed it into law in 1983. Convention on
Cultural Property Implementation Act, Pub. L. 97-
446, tit. III, 96 Stat. 2350 (1983) (codied at 19
U.S.C. §§ 2601-2613).
e CPIA, however, restricts only imports of
“archeological or ethnological material of the State
Party,” which is dened as any object that was “rst
discovered within, and is subject to the export
control by, the State Party.” Section 2601(2).
Here, both Cyprus and China requested the
U.S. to restrict imports of archeological and/
or ethnological materials. In 2009, after import
restrictions on items from those two countries were
put into place, the Guild purchased 23 ancient
Chinese and Cypriot coins from a numismatic
dealer in London. e dealer documentation stated
that each coin was minted in Cyprus or China, but
had not recorded provenance, and the nd spot was
unknown.
e Guild’s shipment was seized by U.S.
Customs & Border Protection (CBP), and would
only be released if the Guild provided evidence that
the coins were either (1) lawfully exported while
CPIA restrictions were in eect; (2) exported from
its respective country of origin more than 10 years
before they arrived in the U.S.; or (3) exported from
its respective country of origin before the CPIA
restrictions went into eect. e Guild did not
provide the requested information to CBP.
A few months later, the Guild led the present
case against various parties, including CBP and
the U.S. Department of State, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland. e Complaint
alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures
Act, as well as of the First and Fifth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. e District Court granted
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. e Guild
appeals.
e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit arms, noting that the Guild may pursue
various forfeiture defenses. is area is statutorily
within the executive discretion and congressional
oversight, and the Court thus declines to review the
matter.
“… Congress set out an elaborate statutory
scheme for promulgating import restrictions on
culturally sensitive items and gave the Executive
Branch broad discretion in negotiating Article 9
agreements with foreign states. See 19 U.S.C. §
2602(a). Congress itself retained oversight of the
CPIA process, id. § 2602(g), and placed signicant
responsibility in the hands of CPAC, a body
composed of experts in the elds of archaeology
and ethnology, id. § 2605. Congress also provided
forfeiture procedures through which importers
could challenge any seizures made pursuant to the
CPIA. Id. § 2609.”

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT