Customs summons compliance: failure to attend as directed meant later document filing did not cure non-compliance, defeating release of goods.

Summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act required the petitioner to attend and produce evidence and documents, and attendance on the dates fixed was mandatory. The Court found that the petitioner did not appear as directed, and a later letter enclosing documents did not amount to compliance because correspondence could not replace personal attendance. On that basis, the contention that the detention of the imported goods had become illegal for want of notice was rejected, and the request for release of the goods failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the imported goods on the ground that the alleged detention was illegal for want of notice under the Customs Act and that the summons issued during investigation were sufficiently complied with.

Analysis: Summons had been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act for the petitioner's attendance and production of evidence and documents. The Court found that the petitioner did not attend on the dates fixed in the summons. The later letter enclosing certain documents did not amount to compliance with the summons, because attendance as directed was mandatory and could not be substituted by correspondence. In these circumstances, the contention that the detention had become illegal was not accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought, and the claim for release of the goods failed.

---