Customs summons compliance upheld where repeated non-appearance lacked a sustainable excuse and belated alternate appearance requests failed.

Repeated failure to comply with lawful Customs summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act can support prosecution for the resulting offence when no legally sustainable excuse is shown. The Allahabad HC found that the record reflected repeated non-appearance despite several summons, and the material did not establish a continuing serious medical incapacity throughout the relevant period. A belated request to appear through a representative or by video conferencing, not first raised before the investigating authority, did not by itself invalidate the summoning process, though such a request could still be considered by the authority or trial court in accordance with law. No jurisdictional error or illegality was shown, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning and continuation of proceedings for repeated non-appearance in response to Customs summons under Sections 208 and 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 warranted interference, and whether permission to appear through a representative or by video conferencing should be granted.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed repeated summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires a summoned person to attend and truthfully state facts, with attendance by an authorised agent only where the summoning officer so directs. The record showed repeated non-appearance by the applicant despite several summons, while the material placed on record did not establish a continuing serious medical incapacity for the entire relevant period. The request to appear through a representative or by video conferencing was not made to the investigating authority at the relevant stage and could still be placed before the authority or the trial court for consideration in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the summoning order and the proposed trial were not shown to suffer from illegality or jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: No interference was called for, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated failure to comply with lawful summons, in the absence of a legally sustainable excuse, can justify prosecution for the resultant offence, and a belated request for alternate mode of appearance does not by itself invalidate the summoning process.

---