Tomb Raiders

NPR ran a series on the traffic in illicit antiquities. It is an interesting look at the international market for archaeological pieces.

Customs and Border Protection is responsible for interdicting and seizing this merchandise when imported without legal authority. The US has 11 bilateral agreements designed to protect so-called cultural property of archaeological, ethnological, or cultural significance. The US did this pursuant to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The US implemented this convention through the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Here is a handy chart showing the status of the agreements. Other protection is afforded under the
Pre-Colombian Monumental, Architectural Sculpture or Murals Act of 1972

For its part, Customs has published an Informed Compliance Publication on the topic.

I've always been fascinated by this sub-specialty of customs law. It strikes me as one of those rare areas of customs law where the stakes are something other than money. On one side is a country trying to reclaim or preserve its cultural heritage. On the other side, in the best case, is a museum that acquired a piece in good faith and possibly generations ago. In the worst case it is an unscrupulous collector. In the case of the museum, it is not immediately clear who has the moral high ground. The NPR story uses a good analogy. Suppose someone made off with the Liberty Bell and it later turned up at an auction in Japan or Russia. That is kind of what Peru claims happened when Inca artifacts were stolen from Machu Picchu or other sites.

And, no post on Tomb Raiders would be complete without this link.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Garry Wills has some good commentary on the recovery/restitution controversy in last week's New York Review, in his article on the Met's antiquities exhibit. The Parthenon, in fact did not really belong to the Athenians, but to Athena herself. I'm not sure what Customs should do when someone attempts to make entry of merchandise which is owned by a god.
May 31, 2007, 9:33:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more