As the government notes in its motion to strike the initial answer, much of the [ACCG’s] 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.
Due process afforded under the U.S. Constitution, the governing statute, and general principles of forfeiture law, all place the burden on the government to establish a factual basis for its contention that the coins at issue were “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of either Cyprus or China.
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