Still Thirty Days Left

By my reckoning, today is the sixtieth day since a Brtish Airways plane landed at Baltimore Airport on April 15th carrying some coins of Cyprus and China which the US Ancient Coin Collectors Guild were trying to import illegally (ie without the paperwork currently required for such items). Although, to judge by the quantities of fresh material on sale there many parcels of ancient artefacts seem to be getting through US customs unchallenged these days, this small one was stopped. What made customs officials particularly suspiciuous about this one? Was it the address of the sender or the intended recipient? Anyway, the coins were seized.

Now according to US law, even though neither exporters or importers sent any paperwork to accompany these items, US law (ever-so collector friendly) allows them ninety days to present it. More, it actually allows them ninety days not to present it, but two other pieces of paper instead. Sect. 307 (b) (2) A and B and (c) (1) of the US CPIA (Collectors Privileges and Indulgence Act). According to this "the definition of satisfactory evidence" that the material left the source country at least ten years before its import, or left the source country before the US imposed import restrictions is:

(A) one or more declarations under oath by the importer, or the
person for whose account the material is imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge-
(i) the material was exported from the State Party not less than
ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and
(ii) neither such importer or person (or any related person)
contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in
such material more than one year before the date of entry of the material; and
(B) a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is based; and

(2) for purposes of subsection (b)(2)(B)- (A) one or more declarations under oath by the importer or the person for whose account the material is to be imported, stating that, to the best of his knowledge, the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under section 305, and
(B) a statement by the consignor or person who sold the material to the importer which states the date, or if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party on or before the date such material was designated under section 305, and the reasons on which the statement is based.

So that's not so difficult is it? You still have thirty days left guys. So, let's get this right. The Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild bought - with their members' money - some coins from some dealer in Britain (?) which they claim are licit, but it looks as if (since there is not a hint that the papers have been submitted) this dealer cannot actually provide assurances to that effect? What is the dealer's name please? Why actually can an antiquity dealer in Britain or anywhere else not vouch for the legitimacy of material they themselves sent to the United States? What about the British dealing in cultural objects (Offences) Act ? I would like publicly to urge that if these coins are seized as illicit by the US authorities in thirty days' time, that the British authorities begin an investigation of the firms whose hands they passed through in Britain when they were put onto BA Flight 229/16. That is the least Britain can do to help countries like Cyprus (used to be ours you know) and China to combat illegal exports. Can the British authorities at least "pull their fingers out" over this one and do something? *

I think we all have the right to know the identity of this mysterious dealer from whom these coins were bought and whether they are a member of both the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) who we know were prosecuting this action against the Cyprus MOU together with the ACCG - I think we need to know to what degree they and their members are involved in this second phase involving the attempted illegal importation of these coins and how they explain any such involvement.

On the other hand, let's watch the US coin collectors try their stunt. I think there is a very big chance that they are going to come out of this with a bloodied nose and a weakened overall position. They are putting their trust (and money) in the wrong people and the wrong tactics.

* They will not of course lift a finger, their advisors would only advise them that by reminding people that such an act exists would be upsetting the precarious balance with British archaeology's "partners", the metal detectorists. Like the US CPIA, the British act is mainly for show. Toothless.

Photo: and how many smuggled clandestinely excavated archaeological artefacts are in the cargo hold of this one then?