"I revert to the· quotation by Goldstone J.A. in the Tieber case. In my view the underlined words in the quotation indicate that the learned judge did not intend and in fact did not lay down an immutable legal principle. In the Tieber case the goods were definitely in transit. It is my considered view that the export of the cigarettes was not bona fide but an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes into this country. Not only has the applicant failed to explain why the detained cigarettes bore the marks that clearly and unequivocally prove that the cigarettes were destined for this country but has likewise failed to explain why the cigarettes eligible for export were packed at the door of each container. The inference that the intention was to deceive a causal inspection into believing that all the cigarettes in each container were for export is irresistible. This was clearly a case of simulated "export". That being so, the cigarettes were not "in transit". The respondents were entitled to detain the goods whilst conducting investigations. In this regard sections 88(1)(a) and 107(2) of the Act authorize such detention."