Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection
801 F. Supp. 2d 383
D. Maryland2011Background
- ACCG sued U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Commissioner, State Department, and Assistant Secretary for ECA over import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins.
- ACCG imported 23 ancient coins from London, which were seized by Customs in 2009 under CPIA-based restrictions.
- CPIA implements the Cultural Property Convention; designation restricts imports if coins meet criteria (age, significance, discovery).</code>
- Cypriot and Chinese coins were added to designated lists following Article 9 processes and CPAC proceedings; Cyprus list took effect July 16, 2007, China list effective Jan 16, 2009.
- ACCG pursued concurrent FOIA litigation; this action seeks APA, IEEPA, CAFRA, and First/Fifth Amendment relief; court granted government motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA reviewability of State Dept actions under CPIA delegation | ACCG argues State Dept actions are reviewable under the APA | State Dept actions are not APA reviewable when taken on behalf of the President under CPIA delegation | State Dept actions not reviewable under the APA |
| Ultra vires first-discovered requirement | ACCG contends unknown find spots cannot be prohibited under CPIA | CPIA allows designation by type and permits restrictions without proven find spots | Restrictions on coins with unknown find spots within CPIA authority are valid |
| China request requirement for Chinese coins | State Dept imposed Chinese coin restrictions without a China request | Public record shows China made a proper Article 9 request; CPTA notice suffices | China request satisfied; ACCG claim dismissed |
| APA review of Customs actions (designated lists and seizure) | Customs actions violate the APA by acting beyond or inconsistently with CPIA | State Dept actions drive the CPIA process; Customs acts within delegated authority | Customs actions not independently violative of the APA; claims against Customs dismissed |
| Constitutional claims and other remedies (First/Fifth Amendment, CAFRA, mandamus) | Actions violate constitutional rights and require remedy | Claims lack merit; exhaustion and procedural requirements apply; some claims dismissed | Constitutional/CAFRA/mandamus claims largely dismissed; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 507 U.S. 800 (1992) (president actions not subject to APA review)
- Kmart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988) (supreme court limits review of government actions under certain conditions)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (ultra vires review limitations under statute-based discretion)
- Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. U.S. Dept. of State, 659 F.Supp.2d 1071 (D.S.D. 2009) (delegated presidential authority and review considerations in foreign affairs)
- Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (illustrative inquiry into public policy arguments in administrative motions)