Short answer. Generally, no. Article 1743 of the Civil Code excuses the common carrier from responsibility when goods are seized or destroyed by order of public authority, provided that authority genuinely had the power to issue the order. If the seizing authority lacked that power, this protection does not apply.
What the law says
If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue the order.
Civil Code, Article 1743 — Seizure by Public Authority. Read the full provision →
Seizure by public authority excuses the carrier
Article 1743 states: if through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible. Ordinarily a common carrier bears heavy responsibility for goods entrusted to it, but this article removes that responsibility for a specific cause of loss — the goods being taken or destroyed because a public authority ordered it. The carrier did not choose to part with the goods; the order came from outside the transportation relationship entirely.
The condition that makes the exemption apply
The protection is not unconditional. The article adds: provided said public authority had power to issue the order. This is the pivotal requirement — the authority that seized or ordered the destruction of the goods must have actually possessed the legal power to do so. An order issued by an authority acting outside its actual powers does not trigger this exemption, even if it looked, on its face, like a lawful seizure at the time it happened.
Why the authority's power matters to your claim
If you are trying to determine whether the carrier can be held liable despite the seizure, the central question this article puts in front of you is whether the seizing authority genuinely had the power to issue that particular order — not simply whether some government office was involved. Customs authorities, for example, generally do have recognized powers over shipments passing through their jurisdiction, which is why seizures carried out within that lawful authority typically fall squarely within what Article 1743 excuses.
What this article does not resolve
Article 1743 addresses the carrier's liability specifically; it does not itself tell you how to recover the seized goods, what process applies to contest the seizure, or what happens if part of the shipment was seized and part was not. Those questions depend on the specific seizure and the rules governing the authority that carried it out. What this article settles is narrower and more specific: whether the carrier, as opposed to anyone else, can be blamed for the loss once a lawful public-authority order is behind it.