Protecting Cultural Heritage by Revising the Customs Entry Form

Customs Entry Form 6059B

When people become aware of the rampant looting, smuggling, and destruction of cultural property, they show concern about preserving humanity's shared cultural heritage. And when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are able to identify specific cultural objects imported into America, they are better positioned to interdict at-risk archaeological, ethnological, religious, and other cultural heritage material at the border.

It is for these reasons that the Customs Entry Form should be revised slightly.

Those who have flown back home from a trip overseas undoubtedly have spotted a flight attendant strolling down the aircraft aisle handing out the ubiquitous blue paper known as Form 6059B, the double-sided document used by travelers to declare goods that they are bringing into the United States.

By checking off the simple “Yes” or “No” boxes found at question #11, travelers easily notify CPB upon their arrival whether they have:

• fruits, vegetables, plants, seeds, food, insects;
• meats, animals, animal/wildlife products;
• disease agents, cell cultures, snails;
• soil or have been on a farm/ranch/pasture.

But, surprisingly, the Entry Form does not include an interrogatory that covers regulated cultural heritage goods. There is no “Yes” or “No” box for travelers to check when carrying an ancient Greek vase, Roman coin, Maya wall art, Byzantine mosaic panel, Tellem textile, Khmer statue, Tyrannosaurus bataar fossil, or the like. That is why a new line under #11 should be added on the Customs Entry Form to say:

I am (We are) bringing...

antiquities/antiques, archaeological material/artifacts, ancient coins, tribal objects, fossils
Yes __  No __

This new Q and A would alert travelers about the existence of regulations that govern imported cultural goods. Such laws include the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act; the Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals Act; the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act; the National Stolen Property Act; and many more.

A person checking the "Yes" box would prompt CBP officers to inquire further about whether a particular cultural heritage object could be imported legally or whether its entry was subject to restriction. A false "No" response might trigger CBP to contact Homeland Security Investigations to examine if someone was knowingly concealing an illegal import.

In addition to the questions found under #11, the Customs Entry Form currently directs travelers to “[d]eclare all articles on this declaration form and show the value in U.S. dollars.” It cautions them about bringing potentially prohibited objects into America like agricultural and wildlife products, controlled substances, obscene articles, toxic substances, and merchandise that infringes intellectual property rights. "Failure to declare such items ... can result in penalties and the items may be subject to seizure," Form 6059B warns. By adding specific language about legally protected cultural property to this part of the Form, travelers would be alerted further about their duty to declare a variety of protected cultural heritage objects.

Retired customs officer Domenic DiGiovanni, who worked extensively with cultural heritage material when he was with CBP, tweeted that these changes to the Form would be a "great idea" because customs officers would ask follow-up questions in person that "could elicit a behavioral response" from the traveler, which in turn could "lead to more questions."

There is plenty of space remaining on Form 6059B to improve the paperwork, and the small changes would go a long way toward protecting cultural heritage.

Text and original photos copyrighted by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, antiquities trafficking, and museum risk management. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of any blog post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

"Antiques" from Syria: U.S. Cultural Property Import Stats Raise Suspicion

Imports of Syrian goods into the United States have fallen dramatically since war broke out in the Mideast nation in 2011 and since the White House expanded the Syria Sanctions Program. Yet, despite the decline in U.S. imports from Syria, there are now disquieting trade statistics from 2014--the most recent complete data available--that should stir the attention of customs officials, police, and policymakers concerned about looted archaeology, stolen mosaics, and illicitly excavated coins trafficked illegally into the U.S.

Overall, America imported about $429.3 million worth of declared goods from Syria in 2010. Last year, that total collapsed to roughly $12.4 million, a stark decline over the five year period.

Moving in the opposite direction for a period of time were U.S. imports of antiques over 100 years old from Syria, which spiked to $11 million in 2013, a spectacular 133% increase in declared customs value over the previous year. While this figure noticeably fell last year to roughly $4.9 million, the value is similar to the $4.7 million worth of imported antiques recorded in 2012.

The 2014 statistic on antiques is striking because the five year trend line for imports of Syrian antiques failed to fade to black like other U.S. imports of Syrian goods. Instead, as the graphic above demonstrates, antiques constituted a decidedly large slice of the American import pie last year. They accounted for a whopping 40% of the value of all imports of every kind from Syria. In fact, goods classified by importers as Antiques of an Age Exceeding 100 Years under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 9706 were the #1 import into the U.S. from Syria. There simply was no other import category that ranked higher in value than antiques, including the #2 import of Syrian anise and cumin seeds and juniper berries classified under HTS 0909.

Notably, every Syrian import classified as an HTS 9706 antique was shipped to the customs district of New York City, the location of one of the largest and most important art and antiquities markets in the world.

What we do not know is what kind of objects these "antiques" were. They may have been at-risk archaeological objects like cuneiform tablets or ancient pottery, deliberately mislabeled by smugglers as being "of an age exceeding 100 years." Customs officials need to find out.

Enforcement officials also need to investigate the #3 American import from Syria in 2014, commodities classified by a code smugglers might use to disguise imports of ancient mosaics. Mosaics, of course, are architectural features made of stone, glass, and/or ceramic. They are spotlighted in the International Council of Museum's Emergency Red List of Syrian cultural property, which is why the import of $1.4 million worth of HTS 6802 goods--11% of the total value of all Syrian imports to the U.S.--is concerning. HTS 6802 is intended to cover worked monumental or building stone; mosaic cubes of natural stone; and artificially colored granules, chippings and powder of natural stone. Yet the code may have been used by traffickers to unlawfully classify 5th century mosaics.

Together,  the declared imports of HTS 9706 and HTS 6802 goods accounted for 51% of the total imports of all Syrian commodities by value in 2014, a striking statistic that simply cannot be overlooked by cultural property watchers focused on spotting trafficked heritage objects that may have illegally piggybacked on legitimate international trade.

Classified by HTS 9705 and amounting to approximately $303,000, collections of historical and archaeological material of Syrian origin was the #5 import by value in 2014. This number was almost a triple increase from the $118,000 imported the year before.

Looking deeper into this trade category, we find that the bulk of HTS 9705 imports from Syria to the United States consisted of Numismatic (Collectors') Coins, Except Gold, classified by HTS 9705.00.0060, having a declared import value of approximately $265,000, which was a quarter of a million dollar jump from the exiguous value of $12,064 declared in 2013. Just like imports of Syrian antiques, every Syrian collectors' coin declared under this HTS category went through the New York City customs district. Were these coins ancient Roman, Byzantine, or Islamic like the ones identified on the Red List? Customs enforcement officials need to find out.

Given the reasonable articulable suspicion that Syrian cultural contraband may be moving to the U.S. through ordinary channels of international trade, police and customs investigators are justified in scrutinizing import paperwork and asking detailed questions of importers and customs brokers that will confirm or dispel this suspicion. To protect cultural heritage in jeopardy, to defend against money laundering, and to protect against terror financing in Syria, it is vital to know exactly what cultural property has been shipped to the U.S. from Syria under the HTS 9705, 9706, and 6802 classifications and why heritage goods makes up such a large portion of imported Syrian commodities.
____________________

Data source: CHL compiled, arranged, and assessed the import figures presented here using raw data collected by the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Copyright notice: Although the data presented here is sourced from publicly available information, it is an original work of authorship that has been carefully selected, coordinated, arranged, and analyzed so that it is an original work of authorship subject to copyright protection as a compilation and/or a derivative work by CHL. The publication, retransmission, or broadcast of this compiled data is strictly prohibited without CHL's express consent.


Note: Import data is reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection by the owner, purchaser, or licensed broker of the consignee. They file the entry documents, not the customs officials who are unable to inspect and document every cargo shipment. So whether cultural commodities are properly classified as HTS 9705 archaeological material or HTS 9706 antiques is the responsibility of the importer. In fact whether imports are falsely classified so that they can be smuggled across the border or whether they are mistakenly classified because of an error in judgment is a function of the importing party. The import classification process is a self-reporting system, part of a shared compliance program overseen by U.S. Customs that obliges the trade community to regulate itself and follow federal law. Shared compliance allows the U.S. to competitively engage the world in global commerce. Smugglers, nevertheless, will try to exploit gaps and loopholes.

____________________
Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer, a blog commenting on matters of cultural property law, art law, cultural heritage policy, antiquities trafficking, and museum risk management. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of any blog post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Culture Under Threat Conference in Cairo: Red Arch Raises Important Questions Posed by U.S. Imports of Art, Collectors' Pieces, and Antiques

Why did the declared value of U.S. general imports of antiques over 100 years old from Syria climb 133% between 2012 and 2013, from approximately $4.7 million to $11 million?

Why did the declared value of U.S. general imports of antiques over 100 years old from Iraq skyrocket 1302% between 2009 and 2013, from $322,564 to $4,523,126?

These were some of the questions posed by Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research at an historic international summit held in Cairo on May 13 and 14.

Antiquities Coalition co-founder and Red Arch board member Peter Herdrich
(far left) stands with delegates and organizers of the Cultural Property Under Threat conference.
Antiquities Coalition Chair Deborah Lehr (7th from right) spearheaded the historic gathering.

Titled Culture Under Threat and cooperatively organized by the Washington, D.C.-based Antiquities Coalition and the Middle East Institute, the conference featured government ministers from ten nations. Together, they signed the Cairo Declaration, a document proposed by Egyptian Minister of Antiquities Mamdouh Eldamaty, calling for:

• the establishment of a high-level task force to coordinate regional and international efforts against cultural heritage trafficking,
• the creation of a public awareness campaign against the black market trade, and
• the formation of an independent center to combat antiquities laundering.

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates proffered the Declaration in the wake of widespread plunder and destruction of archaeological, historical, and religious treasures located in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

“Criminal networks and terrorist groups have systematically looted historic sites and profited from the sales of these antiquities in international black markets,” the government ministers decried. They further denounced the sale of “blood antiquities,” which help fund ISIS and other terror groups.

In light of the extensive cultural heritage looting in the MENA region and because transnational commodities traffickers have been known to penetrate complex trade systems in order to turn contraband into cash, international trade data presented by Red Arch Research sparked important discussions among conference participants. The data highlighting U.S. imports of nondescript antiques from war-torn Syria and Iraq may prompt law enforcement and customs authorities to confirm or dispel any suspicions raised by the numbers.

Additional questions posed by the trade data include:

Why did the declared value of U.S. general imports of archaeological, historical, or ethnographic pieces from Egypt jump 105.5%, from approximately $5.2 million in 2012 to $10.7 million in 2013, which made Egypt the #2 source of such commodities by value behind the United Kingdom at $11.4 million?

Why did the declared value of U.S. general imports of archaeological, historical, or ethnographic goods from Lebanon spike 4,483%, from $6,546 in 2012 to $300,000 in 2013?

Why did the declared value of U.S. general imports of collectors’ coins (excluding gold coins) surge
- 82% from Turkey, from approximately $1.7 million in 2012 to $3 million in 2013?
- 417% from Lebanon, from $54,651 in 2012 to $282,434 in 2013?
- 2,604% from Libya, from $4,793 in 2012 to $129,620 in 2013?

UN Office of Drugs and Crime Regional Representative
Masood Karimipour listens as Red Arch Director Rick St. Hilaire
addresses the Cairo conference delegates.

Smugglers have been known to over-value or under-value invoices to disguise money transfers—a practice called trade based money laundering. Criminals also have been known to create shell import and export companies to hide the origins and transfers of illegally trafficked cultural goods. In past years, the CHL blog has chronicled cases where traffickers surreptitiously described Hindu sculptures as "handicrafts” on customs forms, affixed "Made in Thailand" stickers on ancient Ban Chiang pots to make them appear modern, manipulated the description of a Tyrannosaurus bataar skeleton from Mongolia as a fossil reptile from Great Britain on import paperwork, or falsely declared ancient Egyptian artifacts as “original sculptures and statuary” from Turkey, the UAE, and other nations. These cases illustrate the Basel Art Trade Guidelines (2012) warning that:

In comparison with other trade sectors, the art market faces a higher risk of exposure to dubious trade practices. This is due to the volume of illegal or legally questionable transactions, which is noticeably higher in this sector than in other globally active markets. Far more serious than shady dealings in a legal grey area, the sector’s shadow economy encompasses issues ranging from looted art, professional counterfeiting and fake certificates to the use of art sales for the purpose of money laundering.

Because the legal art and antiquities marketplace nurtures opacity, placing excessive emphasis on discretion over transparency, a black market temptation exists among smugglers, fences, and launderers to hide drops of illegally acquired goods deep within the sea of legitimate commerce. And the sea is vast. Declared American imports of art, collectors’ pieces, and antiques alone totaled over $9 billion in 2013, crowning the U.S. as the top global importer of commodities classified by this customs heading.

Answers are required to the critical questions lurking behind the import statistics: Who is importing the cultural heritage material? Who are the exporters? Exactly what “antiques,” “archaeological pieces,” and “collectors’ coins” are being shipped to the U.S.? From which archaeological sites and through what transshipment countries? And which imports are legal versus illegal? Indeed, uncovering black market trading pipelines, supply chains, and distribution networks navigating within the legitimate stream of commerce should be a key goal of the Cairo conference delegates as well as INTERPOL, the World Customs Organization, dealers and auction houses, and other stakeholders. 
________________________


Invaluable research assistance supplied by Keegan Trace Brooks, JD Candidate, Georgia State University. Data assembled by Red Arch Research from statistics collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission. Photos courtesy of the Antiquities Coalition.


Copyright note: Although the data presented here is sourced from publicly available information, it has been carefully selected, coordinated, arranged, and analyzed so that it is subject to copyright as a compilation by CHL. The publication, retransmission, or broadcast of this compiled data is strictly prohibited without CHL's express consent.

Text copyrighted 2015 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited. CHL is a service of Red Arch Cultural Heritage Law & Policy Research, Inc.

Conflict and the Heritage Trade: Rise in U.S. Imports of Middle East "Antiques" and "Collectors' Pieces" Raises Questions

American imports of art, collections and collectors' pieces, and antiques from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey increased sharply between 2011 and 2013, prompting questions about whether trafficked heritage has piggybacked onto the mainstream marketplace.

War, mass looting, and other grave threats to heritage greatly expand the risk that smuggled cultural contraband will slide into the stream of international commerce undetected. Because art and antiquities transactions often lack transparency or fail to undergo rigorous due diligence, examining published trade data is one way to potentially spot trafficked cultural material hiding under the cover of everyday imports.

One region that has witnessed grave threats to cultural heritage is the Middle East. The intelligence community and the academic community both report that antiquities trafficking has generated revenue for the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). More investigation needs to be conducted to measure the scope of the terror group's earnings activity, but the American Schools of Oriental Research and others have confirmed that archaeological site looting has been a wellspring for pillaged artifacts spilling out of Syria and Iraq, a result of both Syria's civil war and ISIS' sprawl. Spoils from the region reportedly have transited through the neighboring countries of Lebanon and Turkey. And in nearby Egypt, the country has suffered its own cultural heritage crisis amid unrest, prompting the nation to petition for an agreement with the United States that would help protect ancient archaeological and ethnological materials in jeopardy.

Given the cultural heritage emergency that has erupted in the Middle East, U.S. International Trade Commission figures documenting an upsurge in imports of Harmonized Tariff Schedule 97 goods from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey flag concerns about whether conflict antiquities have entered America's stream of commerce. HTS 97 is the customs classification for works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques.

Total American imports of HTS 97 goods from the five countries rapidly escalated from $51.1 million in 2011 to $95.2 million in 2013--an astonishing 86% rise. The across-the-board spike can be gleaned from the table below, which displays hefty individual percentage increases of cultural imports from each of the five countries.

HTS - 97: WORKS OF ART, COLLECTORS' PIECES AND ANTIQUES
Customs Value

U.S. Imports for Consumption

Country	2011	2012	2013	Percent Change 2012 - 2013
	In Actual Dollars
Turkey	22,778,794	24,799,487	44,715,936	80.3%
Egypt	19,546,035	20,201,597	31,383,502	55.4%
Syria	4,553,364	4,759,212	11,148,782	134.3%
Iraq	2,871,141	780,688	4,625,057	492.4%
Lebanon	1,382,136	2,120,696	3,351,462	58.0%

Goods declared by importers to be antiques of an age exceeding 100 years (HTS 9706) or collections and collectors' pieces of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, historical, archaeological, numismatic and other interest (HTS 9705) made up large portions of the broader category of HTS 97 imports.*

For example, HTS 97 imports from Egypt totaling $34.1 million in 2013 largely derived from a combination of $19 million worth of objects labeled by importers as antiques over 100 years old and $11.5 million of goods labeled as collections and collectors' pieces.

HTS 97 imports from Syria totaling $11.1 million in 2013 almost entirely came from $11 million worth of goods classified as antiques.

Remarkable too is that 93% of the 2013 total of HTS 97 imports from Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria were declared to be antiques over 100 years old, begging the question of whether nearly $18 million worth of great grandmothers' rocking chairs and similar items were shipped to America or whether the imports may have been ancient archaeological artifacts misclassified as "antiques."

The table below illustrates, among other information, that commodities declared by importers to be antiques from Iraq and Syria rocketed skyward by 672% and 133%, respectively, from 2012 to 2013.

HTS - 9706: ANTIQUES OF AN AGE EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED YEARS

Customs Value

U.S. Imports for Consumption

Country	2011	2012	2013	Percent Change 2012 - 2013
	In Actual Dollars
Turkey	15,979,030	17,553,638	19,257,308	9.7%
Egypt	16,793,409	13,817,236	19,043,410	37.8%
Syria	4,141,235	4,714,962	11,000,869	133.3%
Iraq	2,832,384	585,682	4,523,126	672.3%
Lebanon	708,461	1,392,005	2,218,073	59.3%

Declared imports of collections and collectors' pieces of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, historical, archaeological, numismatic and other interest goods, meanwhile, grew from $8.9 million in 2011, to $10.8 million in 2012, and then to $19 million in 2013--the final amount constituting a 113% jump from 2011 through 2013. The table below breaks down the individual numbers that chart this ascent. What kinds of objects actually made up these "collections and collectors' pieces?

HTS - 9705: COLLECTIONS AND COLLECTORS' PIECES OF ZOOLOGICAL, BOTANICAL, MINERALOGICAL, HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, NUMISMATIC OR OTHER INTEREST
Customs Value
U.S. Imports for Consumption

Country	2011	2012	2013	Percent Change 2012 - 2013
	In Actual Dollars
Egypt	2,375,694	5,746,759	11,518,231	100.4%
Turkey	5,875,218	4,919,196	6,651,262	35.2%
Lebanon	241,345	82,365	597,982	626.0%
Syria	330,129	34,250	117,913	244.3%
Iraq	30,757	8,509	97,931	1,050.9%

Traffickers have imported cultural material into the U.S. in clever ways in the past, surreptitiously labeling Hindu idols as "handicrafts," affixing "Made in Thailand" stickers on ancient Ban Chiang pots to make them appear modern, or manipulating the description of a Tyrannosaurus bataar skeleton from Mongolia on customs documentation. That is why scrutinizing the art, collectors pieces, and antiques that underlie the customs data described above would go far toward confirming or dispelling the suspicion that smuggled ancient artifacts from the Mideast may have been embedded within America's conventional global trade.

Among the questions requiring answers are what kinds of objects were specifically imported, and why did imports of "antiques" and "collectors' pieces" skyrocket in many instances? Were the imports classified properly or improperly? Who were the importers of record, and where did they sell their merchandise? Who were the buyers? What can the customs forms reveal about the commodities' actual countries of origin and their transshipment locations?


Data source: U.S. International Trade Commission Interactive Trade DataWeb (USITC DataWeb), as compiled by the Commission from official data retrieved from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (accessed October 2014).


Copyright note: Although the data presented here is sourced from publicly available information, it has been carefully selected, coordinated, arranged, and analyzed so that it is subject to copyright as a compilation by CHL. The publication, retransmission, or broadcast of this compiled data is strictly prohibited without CHL's express consent.

Photo credit: Svilen Milev
________________

*Import data is reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection by the owner, purchaser, or licensed broker of the consignee. They file the entry documents, not the customs officials who are unable to inspect and document every cargo shipment. So whether cultural commodities are properly classified as HTS 9705 archaeological material or HTS 9706 antiques is the responsibility of the importer. In fact whether imports are falsely classified so that they can be smuggled across the border or mistakenly classified because of a judgment error is a function of the importing party. The import classification process is a self-reporting system, part of a shared compliance program overseen by U.S. Customs that obliges the trade community to regulate itself and follow federal law. Shared compliance allows the U.S. to competitively engage the world in global commerce. But smugglers will try to exploit the gaps and loopholes.

By Rick St. Hilaire
Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

Allegations of False Declarations and Altered Trade Papers: Forfeiture Complaint Says $250,000 Dinosaur Skull Isn't from France and Isn't a Cheap Replica

In a civil forfeiture complaint published today and filed last Friday, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York told a federal district court that a fossilized dinosaur skull over 65 million years old isn’t a cheap replica and isn’t from France.

Prosecutors alleged in their complaint that a French fossil dealer attempted to unlawfully import the Alioramus dinosaur head into the United States by failing to disclose that it was real, that it originated from Mongolia, or that it was valued at a quarter million dollars.

This latest case appears to be part of a trend by U.S. and Mongolian authorities to focus attention on illegal imports of dinosaur fossils. The smuggling convictions U.S. v. Rolater and U.S. v. Prokopi are examples of recent criminal prosecutions. No criminal prosecution has been announced in the present case, which is an in rem action against the object that is captioned as U.S. v. One Alioramus Dinosaur Skull.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Karin Orenstein wrote in the verified civil complaint that the dinosaur skull must be forfeited under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a because the skull is considered stolen property according to the terms of the National Stolen Property Act 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The prosecutor also asserted that the head was smuggled into the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 and/or § 545.

The AUSA recited the following allegations in support of the lawsuit to take title to the fossil and repatriate it to Mongolia:

In January 2014, Geofossiles shipped an Alioramus dinosaur skull via UPS from France to Newark, New Jersey. U.S. Customs intercepted and detained the shipment. “Attached to the customsdeclaration was an invoice dated January 9, 2014 for ‘fossil cast dinosaur bones from France’with a sales price of 2,500 Euros plus fees. Atthe time, 2,500 Euros could be exchangedfor approximately $3,400.”

Geofossiles petitioned Customs to reclaim the dinosaur head but provided conflicting paperwork that declared that the head was actually of Mongolian origin. Geofossiles attached to its petition "a different invoice, dated March 18, 2014, describing the Defendant in rem as 'Fossil dinosaur bones 70% and 30% cast' with a purchase price of $250,000, indicating that the shipment containeda genuine fossil.”

The prosecutor’s complaint outlined how Mongolian authorities uncovered allegedly altered information during an examination of export paperwork:

Geofossiles attachedto the Petition documents whichpurported to show that the Defendantin rem was reported to the Mongolian government and allowedto leave Mongoliain 2006. 

....

The documents supplied by Geofossiles were reviewed by Mongolian authorities who located their original counterparts in their records. The Mongolian authorities determined that the copies provided by Geofossiles were altered versionsof records pertainingto the export of four Mongolian  “ger” sets in 2006. A ger is a moveable,circular dwelling that is a traditional residential structure in Mongolia. 

The original MongolianCertificate of Originlists only the gers. By comparison,the copy of the MongolianCertificate of Originsupplied by Geofossiles lists the same gers, but has been altered to add, in a different font, four paleontological terms, including “tarbo[]saurus.”

The French dealer, or any other valid party that chooses to assert title to the Alioramus skull, will have an opportunity to challenge the allegations made by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2014 by Cultural Heritage Lawyer. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post without the express written consent of CHL is prohibited.

The Cultural Property Implementation Act Covers Ancient Coins

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) classifies designated ancient coin artifacts as archaeological material. That ancient coins serve as evidentiary sources of the past makes perfect sense. Ancient coins that have been scientifically excavated, observed, and documented in their original context can absolutely date ancient sites of human activity, tell archaeologists about the available currencies that circulated during different time periods, and offer material evidence about the societies that used these artifacts. As a result, ancient coins are significant cultural objects..

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees. In the case of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., the court acknowledged that "[c]oins are portable objects," but added, "that is not the whole story." In a unanimous ruling the judges wrote, "The often worn and mysterious beauty of ancient coins renders them invaluable cultural artifacts, helpful not only in dating archaeological finds but in revealing how distant civilizations once conducted their civic and commercial life.”

Tearing artifacts from the ground without concern for their evidentiary value and without regard for the archaeological sites from which they were stripped irreparably destroys critical evidence of the past. That is why there are strong legal, political, and social efforts to stop looters from engaging in this malicious activity.

The CPIA’s defines “cultural property” as “articles described in article 1(a) through (k) of the [1970 UNESCO] Convention whether or not any such article is specifically designated as such by any State Party for the purposes of such article.” 19 U.S.C. § 2601(6).

Turning to Article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property shows that “cultural property” includes ancient coins, which are "(c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries; [and] ... (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals[.]" (Emphasis added).

Import controls enacted under the CPIA must regulate cultural property that is "archaeological material." By the terms of 19 U.S.C. §2601(2)(C), that is material

which was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party.For purposes of this paragraph—(i) no object may be considered to be an object of archaeological interest unless such object—(I) is of cultural significance; (II) is at least two hundred and fifty years old; and (III) was normally discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging, or exploration on land or under water; and

Ancient coins covered under currently enacted CPIA import protections include what is described in the definition above, namely those that are dug up and at least 250 years old. They are also artifacts of cultural significance because of their archaeological value. The Federal Register(Jan. 19, 2011), for example, chronicled the CPIA bilateral agreement with Italy by reporting, “Coins constitute an inseparable part of the archaeological record of Italy, and, like other archaeological objects, they are vulnerable to pillage and illicit export.”

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) unsuccessfully argued to the federal courts that the U.S. State Department and Customs and Border Protection "acted ultra vires [outside the law] by placing import restrictions on all coins of certain types without demonstrating that all coins of those types were 'first discovered within'' the countries of origin. A federal appeals court struck down this assertion saying “We are not persuaded.” The Fourth Circuit explained that "State and CBP are under no obligation to list restricted items with more specificity than the [CPIA] statute commands, and they are certainly not required to impose restrictions on a coin-by-coin basis. Such a requirement would make the statutory scheme utterly unworkable in practice.”

In the same case, the ACCG complained that collectors do not always have documents supporting the import of most ancient coins. The Fourth Circuit acknowledged that there may be cultural property imported into the U.S. that lack provenance or export permits, but pointed out that there is a process allowing importers to show that the objects are legal. The court observed:

In those cases, the [CPIA] statute expressly provides that CBP may seize the articles at the border: ‘If the [importer] of any designated archaeological or ethnological material is unable to present to the customs officer” the required documentation, the “officer concerned shall refuse to release the material from customs custody ... until such documentation or evidence is filed with such officer.’ 19 U.S.C. § 2606(b). In short, CBP need not demonstrate that the articles are restricted; rather, the statute “expressly places the burden on importers to prove that they are importable.”

The court highlighted that, under the CPIA, "[t]he importer need not document every movement of its articles since ancient times. It need demonstrate only that the articles left the country that has requested import restrictions before those restrictions went into effect or more than ten years before the date of import."

The customs law, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1484, obliges the importer of record to use reasonable care when entering, classifying and determine the value of imported items. That includes the importer’s duty to list the country of origin of any ancient coins imported into the U.S. More about the importer's responsibility can be found here.

Photo credit: Patrick Moore

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

The Top Import Suppliers of Works of Art, Collectors’ Pieces and Antiques to the United States

Works of art, collectors’ pieces and antiques imported into the United States are categorized by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code 97. CHL recently identified 2013's top source countries of archaeological, historical, and ethnological material to the U.S. But which nations rank in 2013's top 10 list of suppliers for all HTS 97 imports by general customs value? They are, in order from highest to lowest declared customs values,

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Germany

Spain

Switzerland

China

Netherlands

Japan

Belgium

The table below shows the fuller picture of 2009 through 2013 American imports of works of art, collectors’ pieces and antiques, displaying the total general customs import values among last year's top 25 source nations.

The data have been compiled from publicly available tariff and trade information produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The commodities classified by HTS 97 consist of paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, statuary, and stamps. Also included are collectors' pieces and collections of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, anatomical, historical, archaeological, and paleontological materials. Numismatics fall under the classification too, as do antiques over 100 years old.

Copyright note: Although the data presented here is sourced from publicly available information, it has been carefully selected, coordinated, arranged, and analyzed so that it is subject to copyright as a compilation by CHL. The publication, retransmission, or broadcast of this compiled data is strictly prohibited without CHL's express consent.

By Rick St. Hilaire Text copyrighted 2010-2014 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Blog url: culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com