Duty to preserve seized property pending appeal: authority liable for value when it cannot return the property in specie.

SC noted that where customs-seized property remains subject to appeal or revision and the statutory scheme contemplates restoration if confiscation is overturned, the seizing authority must preserve the property with reasonable care pending final disposal. Allowing the seized vehicles to be treated as unclaimed property and sold, despite knowledge of the seizure and pending challenge, breached that duty. The Court treated the obligation as analogous to bailment: the authority had to keep the property available for return in specie, and if it wrongfully disabled itself from doing so, the owner could claim its value. The claim was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State, after seizing property under the customs law and before final disposal of the appeal, was under a legal obligation to preserve the property and, on failure to return it in the same condition, was liable to return its value.

Analysis: The seizure and confiscation were made under the customs statute, but the confiscation order was subject to appeal and revision and had not become final when the property was sold. The statutory scheme contemplated that if the confiscation was set aside, the property would have to be restored to the owner. From that scheme, the Court inferred a duty to keep the seized property intact and to take reasonable care of it during the pendency of proceedings. The State's conduct in allowing the vehicles to be dealt with as unclaimed property, despite knowledge that they had been seized from the respondent and despite the pending appeal, breached that duty. The Court further held that the relationship was analogous to bailment, in the sense of an obligation to preserve and return specific property, even apart from an enforceable contract. Since the State had disabled itself from restoring the property in specie, the owner was entitled to claim its value.

Conclusion: The State was bound to return the property or, failing that, to pay its value; the respondent's claim was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized property remains subject to pending challenge and the statutory scheme contemplates restoration on reversal, the authority in possession must preserve the property with reasonable care and is liable for its value if it wrongfully disables itself from returning it.

---