Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;red_spork, post: 2940416, member: 74282&quot;]I don&#039;t think his interpretation is correct. You can read the text of the regulation here:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/05/2017-26278/emergency-import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-materials-from-libya" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/05/2017-26278/emergency-import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-materials-from-libya" rel="nofollow">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/05/2017-26278/emergency-import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-materials-from-libya</a></p><p><br /></p><p>It looks like these regulations work the same as all previous ones, namely that if a particular type of coin is on the restricted list it is restricted from import unless you have documentation that it was not recently illegally removed from the source country, either because you can show it was on the market before the imposition of import restrictions, on the market 10 years ago or earlier or you have an export certificate from the source country. Nothing in the official Federal Register notice suggests that there is any burden of proof on CBP to prove that a coin was found in Libya.</p><p><br /></p><p>Laws have been in place for decades that will allow countries to repatriate anything that they can prove was illegally exported and that&#039;s exactly how it should work: with the burden of proof on the accuser (i.e. the US or foreign government). These import restrictions turn that on its head and place the burden of proof on the accused to prove that an object was not recently illegally exported.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in