Clandestine removal demands require concrete, verifiable evidence; probability alone cannot sustain a duty demand.

A duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of cone yarn cannot be sustained on mere probability. The recorded material referred to a despatch register, doff notes and statements, but the underlying evidence was not available for verification. The decision states that such a demand must rest on concrete, verifiable and quantitative evidence establishing actual clandestine removal with reasonable certainty. In the absence of acceptable supporting material, the demand was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty for alleged clandestine removal of cone yarn could be sustained on the basis of probability and the available record.

Analysis: The demand was founded on a despatch register, doff notes and certain statements, but the evidentiary materials themselves were not available on record for verification. The Court held that a demand of duty cannot rest merely on a theory of probabilities. It further observed that demand of duty must have a quantitative basis supported by acceptable evidence, and that the present case lacked the material necessary to establish actual clandestine removal with the required certainty.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was not sustainable and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand for alleged clandestine removal must rest on concrete, verifiable and quantitative evidence, and cannot be sustained on mere probability.

---