VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of learned Counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is from the order of chandrakantaraj Urs, J. , allowing WP no. 21989 of 1031. Respondents 1 and 2 therein, namely, the Collector of Customs and central Excise, and the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central excise (Preventive) respectively, have presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition. ( 3 ) IT would be advantageous to state at the outset, the facts which led up to this appeal: On 5-9-1981, in exercise of the powers under S. 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Assistant Collector of Customs (respondent-2 ). issued an authorisation to the Inspector of Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive unit, Bangalore (the Customs Officer) to search premises No. 79|83, Palace road, Bahgalore. That authorisation reads:"whereas information has been laid before me, and on due inquiry thereupon had, I have been led to believe that premises noted here- under No. 79|83, Palace Road, Bangalore is used as a place to secret goods liable to confiscation under the customs Act, 1962. This is to authorise and require you to enter the said houseipremises with such assistance as shall be required, and to search every part of the said house premises and to seize and take possession of the 'said goods and also of any documents or things which will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 and forthwith to bring before me such of the said things as may be taken possession of, returning tins authorisation with an endorsement certifying what, you have done under it, immediately upon its execution. " ( 4 ) ON the self-same day, the Customs Officer searched premises No. 79/83 and seized therefrom the following goods of the value shown against each of them: ( 21 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. However, we make it clear that we should not be understood as having said anything on the merits of the claims put forth by the petitioners in respect of the seized goods. 2. 2. However, we make it clear that we should not be understood as having said anything on the merits of the claims put forth by the petitioners in respect of the seized goods. 2. 2. In the circumstances of this appeal, we direct the' parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .