Clandestine clearance evidence sustained duty demand where shortages, seized goods and unchallenged statements corroborated removal without duty.

Duty demand based on factory shortages, excess finished goods, seized trader stock and corroborative statements was sustained because the record supported clandestine clearance rather than a mere approximation. The Tribunal relied on shortages in the factory, processed fabrics ready for removal, the folding contractor's statement and traders' statements linking the goods to the assessee's processing activity without duty payment. The absence of the assessee's name on seized fabrics, the claim of pending approval or later duty payment, and the failure to seek cross-examination or show retraction did not displace the evidence. The earlier comparable matter was distinguished on facts because the present evidence was materially stronger.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand based on shortages, excess finished goods, traders' statements, and other corroborative material was sustainable against the assessee.

Analysis: The demand was not treated as resting on a mere approximation. The material on record included shortages found in the factory, processed fabrics found ready for clearance, seizure of goods from traders, the folding contractor's statement, and traders' statements linking the goods to the assessee's processing activity without payment of duty. The absence of the assessee's name on seized fabrics and the plea that the goods were pending approval or that duty was paid later did not displace the evidence of clandestine clearance. The assessee also did not seek cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon, and the statements were not retracted. The Tribunal distinguished the earlier comparable matter on facts and held that the evidence here was materially different and stronger.

Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld against the assessee.

---