Clandestine removal requires independent evidence of unrecorded clearance; wrong statutory entries alone do not sustain a duty demand.

Incorrect entries in prescribed registers and returns, even where production loss is reflected in the statutory records, do not by themselves prove clandestine removal. In the absence of independent evidence of surreptitious clearance of final goods without payment of duty, the discrepancy remains a recording defect rather than proof of evasion. On that basis, the duty demand could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be sustained on the allegation of clandestine removal where the discrepancy arose from incorrect maintenance of statutory records and the loss was reflected in the return documents.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had entered the production figures incorrectly in the prescribed registers and returns, but the loss was also reflected in the statutory documents. There was no independent evidence showing removal of the final product without payment of duty. The defect was one of wrong recording of production and loss, not of surreptitious clearance of goods.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the demand could not be sustained.

---