United States of America v. 3 Knife-Shaped Coins et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 6/3/14. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
3 KNIFE-SHAPED COINS, ET AL.

:
:
: CIVIL NO. CCB-13-1183
:
:
...o0o...
MEMORANDUM

From a review of the pending motion to strike the Amended Answer, and related filings,
it is abundantly clear that the claimant, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (“the Guild”) seeks to
expand the scope of this forfeiture action well beyond the limits set by the Fourth Circuit in its
controlling opinion, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 698
F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012). The Fourth Circuit’s opinion forecloses any further challenge to the
validity of the regulations. As the Circuit explained in discussing the anticipated forfeiture
action:
Under the CPIA, the government bears the initial burden in
forfeiture of establishing that the coins have been “listed in
accordance with section 2604,” 19 U.S.C. § 2610, which is to say
that they have been listed “by type or other appropriate
classification” in a manner that gives “fair notice . . . to importers,”
id. § 2604. If the government meets its burden, the Guild must
then demonstrate that its coins are not subject to forfeiture in order
to prevail. See id. § 1615.
Ancient Coin Collectors, 698 F.3d at 185. Further, the court explained that:
Here, CBP has listed the Chinese and Cypriot coins by type, in
accordance with 19 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 2604, and CBP has detained
them, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 2606. The detention was
lawful as an initial matter, and the Guild had an opportunity at the
time of detention to present evidence that the coins were subject to
one of the CPIA exemptions.
Id. at 183. The burden is on the importer to show that:

the article in question was either (1) lawfully exported from its
respective state while CPIA restrictions were in effect; (2)
exported from its respective state more than ten years before it
arrived in the United States; or (3) exported from its respective
state before CPIA restrictions went into effect.
Id.
As the government notes in its motion to strike the initial answer, much of the answer and
most if not all of the affirmative defenses seek to relitigate issues concerning the validity of the
regulations and the government’s decision to impose import restrictions on certain Cypriot and
Chinese coins. For example, in its Surreply opposing the motion to strike, the Guild suggests
that the government will be required to establish that the coins were “first discovered within” and
“subject to the export control” of either Cyprus or China. (Surreply, ECF No. 18, at 1-2.) The
Guild is not correct. This argument also is foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s opinion. Ancient
Coin Collectors, 698 F.3d at 181-82.
Accordingly, while the Amended Answer is accepted for filing, the government’s motion
to strike will be construed as directed at the Amended Answer and will be granted. The parties
will be provided time to file proposed discovery and motions schedules consistent with the
limited issues to be resolved.
A separate Order follows.

June 3, 2014
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge