IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 2009 Ahmed Mohd. Idris Ishaque ..Petitioner. V/s. Commisioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.D.Ray, i/b. S.G.Maske for the petitioner. Mr.R.G.Bhat with Rajinder Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : SMT.RAJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RAJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RAJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that seizure of the goods covered under bill of entry No.668842 dated 4/11/2008 by the customs authorities is illegal and contrary to law. 2. In the light of the seizure memo dated 17/1/2008, it is contended that the customs authorities have seized the goods on the ground that the said goods are imported by a fake importer / IEC holder. It is contended that the seizure has been effected without there being any reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. It is further contended that the Importer-Exporter Code - = : 2 : = - number is issued by DGFT and, therefore, the customs authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the Code number issued by DGFT. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of the customs authorities in seizing the goods imported by the petitioner be declared to be illegal and the customs authorities be directed to permit clearance of the goods expeditiously. 3. We see no merit in the above contentions because, from the file produced before us, it is seen that the seizure has been effected on the prima facie belief that the imports have been made by a fake IEC holder. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that the seizure has been effected without there being any reason to believe that the goods are liable to be confiscated, cannot be accepted. 4. The contention of the petitioner that the customs authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity of IEC Code granted to the petitioner is also without any merit, because, in the present case, the customs authorities are investigating into the question as to whether the petitioner is the real importer or a dummy importer and not with reference to the code number given by the DGFT. - = : 3 : = - 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in the above petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. However, we direct the customs authorities to complete the investigation and pass appropriate orders on the seized goods, which are the subject matter of the present petition as expeditiously as possible. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)