JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. An innovative kind of submission is sought to be made by learned counsel for the petitioner to over come or to avoid a search warrant, issued under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 . 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 105 of the Customs Act talks in terms of coastal area or coast of India and Motihari does not fall within the coastal area. Therefore, the search warrant issued against the petitioner is without jurisdiction. 4. Section 105 of the Customs Act is quoted hereunder: "Section 105. Power to search premises. (1) If the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, or in any area adjoining the land frontier or the coast of India an officer of customs specially empowered by name in this behalf by the Board, has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation, or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorize any officer of customs to search or may himself search for such goods, documents or things." 5. A plain reading of the above states that "in any area adjoining the frontier or the coast of India". In other words any land adjoining to the international border is the frontier area too is included in the power under Section 105 of the Act. The interpretation of the petitioner that the frontier area means North West Frontier Province is a misnomer and the interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner is without any authority of law in this regard. 6. It is frivolous kind of writ application filed for prevention of enforcement of law, where prima facie material has emerged against the petitioner. 7. This writ application is dismissed.