Duration of Customs Investigations and Judicial Protection of Property Rights

On September 19, 2025, the Ashdod Magistrate’s Court issued a decision setting a deadline for completion of an investigation and for the Customs Officer to decide whether the imported vehicles should continue to be detained. The decision reflects the delicate balance between the administrative discretion vested in enforcement authorities and the individual’s rights to property and freedom of occupation.

At the heart of the decision was a motion for a temporary mandatory injunction seeking the release of four vehicles detained on suspicion of undervaluation. The applicants argued that the continued detention infringed their freedom of occupation and caused substantial economic harm. The respondent, for its part, contended that it possessed indications showing that the declared prices were lower than the prices actually paid.

The Court, per the Honorable Judge Yehuda Liebline, denied the motion but established a mechanism for judicial oversight: if the Customs Officer failed to render a decision by November 21, 2025, the applicants would be entitled to renew their application. The Court stated as follows:

“If no decision is made by the Customs Officer as to the intended course of action regarding the vehicles in question by November 21, 2025, the applicants shall be entitled to reapply for temporary relief. It should be emphasized that I make no determination regarding such a future motion, but merely note that, over the passage of time, the issue of the vehicles’ detention should be reconsidered periodically.”

The Normative Framework and the Proper Balance

The decision is grounded in the principles governing interim relief, as set out in Regulations 94-95 of the Civil Procedure Regulations. Judge Liebline emphasized that the balance of convenience is a central consideration, but that particular caution is required where the requested relief would alter the status quo.

The Court recognized that prolonged detention of private property may infringe both the right to property and freedom of occupation. It therefore adopted a dynamic mechanism of judicial oversight, allowing for periodic reassessment of the balance as time passes.

Guiding Principles in Prior Case Law

The decision is consistent with earlier rulings holding that, even where courts exercise restraint, they retain the authority to ensure that investigations are conducted within a reasonable period of time.

In M.C. (Krayot Magistrate’s Court) 42442‑06‑23 Customs and VAT Investigations Division, Haifa v. Namik Novakhov (December 26, 2023), the Court adopted a unique oversight mechanism, granting the authority 60 days to advance the investigation:

“The respondent shall make every effort to advance the investigation… A period of 60 days is hereby granted… I trust that the respondent will act in good faith and with genuine intent to advance the investigation… If, within 60 days, the respondent’s position remains that it continues to hold the funds, the applicant may apply to the Court… so that the reasons and motives may be examined in greater depth.”

A similar approach was adopted in M.C. (Nazareth Magistrate’s Court) 25141‑08‑16 Bleikhman v. Israel Police (October 5, 2016), where the Court set a 45‑day period for completion of the investigation.

In Cr.A. 7860/18 Natan Furman v. State of Israel (November 14, 2018), the Supreme Court held that authorities lack the power to retain seized property indefinitely, stating:

“If, within the Court’s supervisory framework, it is found that the pace of the investigation is unsatisfactory, a further adjustment of the balance may be considered.”

Systemic Implications

The case law indicates that setting a timeframe for completion of an investigation serves as a judicial oversight mechanism designed to ensure proportionality and reasonableness in administrative action. Courts are careful not to usurp the powers of the investigating authority, yet they likewise do not permit the indefinite retention of seized property.

Judicial intervention is exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Even where a deadline for completing the investigation is imposed, this does not necessarily require the authority to reach a final substantive decision by that date; rather, it requires the authority to justify any continued retention thereafter.

The decision underscores the importance of cooperation with the investigation, as a lack of cooperation may justify the continued detention of seized property. At the same time, it makes clear that even in such circumstances the authority does not have a “blank check” to retain property indefinitely.

[C.C. (Ashdod Magistrate’s Court) 23661‑08‑25 Naor Shai Investments Ltd. v. State of Israel – Ashdod Customs House (Nevo, September 19, 2025)]

Counsel for the Applicants: Adv. R. Ben Shushan and Adv. H. Jwamis

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. L. Arad