## Facts

- The property at issue was a fourth-century B.C. Sicilian gold ritual bowl (a phiale mesomphalos).
- By about 1980, the bowl was in Sicily, and an expert identified it as authentic and of Sicilian origin.
- After multiple dealer transactions, it reached a Zurich dealer, William Veres.
- In 1991, Veres agreed to sell the bowl for $1.2 million to New York dealer Robert Haber, acting for collector Michael H. Steinhardt.
- Haber took possession near the Italian–Swiss border and transported the bowl to New York.
- On U.S. Customs entry paperwork, Haber declared Switzerland as the country of origin and $250,000 as the value.
- Steinhardt purchased and displayed the bowl from 1992 to 1995.
- Italy asserted ownership under its 1939 cultural property law, which presumes state ownership of certain antiquities found in Italy absent proof of private ownership predating 1902.
- In 1995, U.S. authorities seized the bowl after an Italian request, and the United States filed an in rem civil forfeiture action under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c).

## Issues

1. Whether false customs statements about country of origin and value were “material” so that the bowl was forfeitable as merchandise imported “contrary to law” under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c).
2. Whether Italian patrimony law rendered the bowl “stolen property,” providing an independent basis to treat its importation as “contrary to law.”
3. Whether forfeiture of the bowl violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States and upheld forfeiture.
- The court held the false statements regarding country of origin and value were material and therefore supported forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c).
- The court agreed that Italian patrimony law could also support treating the bowl as stolen property, reinforcing forfeiture as an alternative theory.
- The court rejected the Eighth Amendment challenge and held forfeiture was not an excessive fine.

## Legal Principles

- Under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c), merchandise may be forfeited if imported “contrary to law,” including when importation occurs “by means of” materially false statements.
- A customs statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, Customs’ functions, including enforcement choices and scrutiny of regulated imports.
- Misrepresenting a cultural object’s country of origin may be material where it can conceal a source country associated with restrictive cultural property rules, impairing enforcement.
- Major undervaluation on customs entry forms may be material because it can affect Customs’ assessment and level of scrutiny, not merely duty calculations.
- Foreign patrimony statutes that vest ownership in a foreign state may be recognized to treat unlawfully exported antiquities as “stolen” for purposes of U.S. import and forfeiture law.
- Forfeiture based on materially false import declarations in this setting does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause when not grossly disproportionate to the offense conduct.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld forfeiture of an ancient Sicilian gold bowl because it was imported through materially false customs declarations about origin and value, and it held that recognizing Italy’s patrimony claim and ordering forfeiture did not violate the Eighth Amendment.


United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold Known as a Gold Phiale Mesomphalos C. 400 B.C., 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999)