Summons validity and prior customs adjudication required trial court review before any quashing could be considered.

Summons issued in a complaint were questioned because no specific order taking cognizance or directing summons was shown on record, and the earlier customs adjudication had later been dropped after remand. The matter was not quashed at this stage; instead, the parties were directed to place the relevant facts and the subsequent customs order before the trial court, which may examine whether the summons were issued in accordance with law. The Court treated the chronology of the customs proceedings and the absence of a clear cognizance or summons order as matters requiring consideration by the trial forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summons issued in the complaint could be sustained when no specific order taking cognizance or directing issuance of summons was brought on record, and whether the earlier customs adjudication order and its subsequent dropping of proceedings warranted consideration by the trial court.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the assertion that the complaint had been listed on several dates without cognizance being taken or summons being expressly ordered, yet summons were later issued. It was also noted that the customs adjudication had earlier resulted in a demand and penalty order, which was remanded in appeal and thereafter culminated in an order dropping the proceedings. The factual matrix, as placed before the Court, made it appropriate that these aspects be placed before the trial court for consideration.

Conclusion: The petition did not result in quashing at this stage. The petitioners were left to place the relevant facts and the later customs order before the trial court, which was also free to examine whether the summons had been issued in accordance with law.

---