eBay "liquidated" my antique blade!

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by adamb

You are quite wrong: I have seen components that, based on the (usually poor) online images, look very much like ivory (these are Australian auctions I'm talking about) that turn out to be modern resin.

Really?
Here what you write to Alan:

Thanks Alan, in this case there was no mention of the hilt and buntut material in the seller's description on eBay; indeed the word 'ivory' did not appear in connection with the keris at all. I was of course hoping to be pleasantly surprised when it arrived, but from the seller's photos I could not be sure that the material was not bone or tridacna (although I believe the latter would also raise CITES issues), maybe even resin if very unluckly. It had occurred to me that US customs might seize it at the border if they inspected it and found it to be ivory, but I believed (no doubt naively) that the date of "1809" on the label would clearly show that the artefact long pre-dates the CITES agreement, and that I would be given the opportunity to make that case to US customs. Indeed, the keris was accompanied by a hard copy of paperwork proving that it had been acquired by the former owner in the early to mid 20th century.

Can anyone tell me what happens with CITES if a buyer acquires an antique from an overseas seller that they suspect/hope has an ivory component, when no mention of that is made by the seller in their description of the item?