Clandestine removal requires positive evidence; molasses discrepancies and input-output calculations alone were insufficient here.

Clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on a mere discrepancy in molasses figures or on formula-based input-output calculations without reliable corroboration. The department relied on test reports and an inference that lower available molasses necessarily meant proportionate unaccounted sugar production and clearance, but the record showed no excess sugar and no independent evidence of clandestine activity. As clandestine removal is a positive allegation, the burden remained on the department to prove it by credible evidence rather than conjecture or presumption. The allegation was not proved, and the demand of duty and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether clandestine manufacture and removal of sugar could be sustained solely on the basis of a discrepancy in available molasses and the department's input-output calculations.

Analysis: The demand rested on test reports showing a lower available molasses figure than that declared by the factory, followed by a formula-based inference that proportionate extra sugar must have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. The factual basis for the inference was found insufficient, because the analytical report did not show any excess sugar and there was no independent evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. Clandestine removal being a positive allegation, the burden remained on the department to establish it by reliable evidence and not by conjecture or presumption.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal was not proved, and the demand of duty and penalty could not be sustained.

---