Clandestine removal demands fail when based only on register entries without corroborative evidence of manufacture or clearance.

A demand of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of paper reinforced bags failed because the case rested only on an RG-I register entry. With no corroboration from raw material consumption, manufacturing process evidence, sales evidence, or other supporting material, the record showed only suspicion and a possible missing bailing report. Clandestine removal cannot be established on mere possibility; it must be proved by sufficient evidence. On that basis, the allegation was not proved and the demand and penalties were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty based solely on an entry in the RG-I register could sustain a finding of clandestine manufacture and removal of paper reinforced bags without payment of duty.

Analysis: The only material relied upon for the alleged clandestine production was the appellant's own register entry. There was no corroboration from consumption of raw materials, any process of manufacture, sale evidence, or other supporting material. The record itself noted the absence of corroborative evidence and only suggested a possibility that no bailing report had been prepared. A finding of clandestine removal cannot rest on suspicion or mere possibility and must be supported by sufficient evidence.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal was not proved; the demand and penalties were not sustainable.

---