Insufficient evidence for clandestine removal: transporter receipts and dealer links could not sustain duty demand or penalties.

Duty demand and penalties based only on transporter goods receipts and alleged links with dealers of another manufacturer were unsustainable where there was no direct evidence of receipt of billets, no proof of manufacture or clandestine clearance, and no identification of buyers. The evidentiary basis was held insufficient, and prior decisions on identical facts had rejected fastening liability on such material. The materials pointed instead to billets being traced to the identified manufacturer, with any duty liability to be determined against that manufacturer. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalties could be sustained on the basis of transporter goods receipts and the alleged links with dealers of another manufacturer, in the absence of direct evidence of receipt of billets, manufacture, clandestine clearance, or identification of buyers.

Analysis: The demand rested entirely on entries in goods receipts issued by transporters. No independent investigation established receipt of billets by the appellant, no evidence proved manufacture or clandestine clearance of the final product, and the alleged buyers were not identified. The evidence relied upon was held insufficient, and prior decisions on identical facts had rejected such a basis for fastening liability. The earlier view also noted that the manufacture of billets had been traced to the identified manufacturer and that duty, if any, had to be determined against that manufacturer.

Conclusion: The allegations were not proved by reliable evidence and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---