Stock shortage demands need physical verification; estimated figures and presumption alone cannot prove clandestine removal.

Duty demand for alleged stock shortages cannot be sustained on eye estimation alone where there is no physical verification or actual weighment. The demand in this matter was based on figures estimated by a manager, while the department had itself verified part of the stock and dropped those proceedings, showing that verification was feasible. In the absence of proof of shortage or clandestine removal, a presumption could not discharge the department's burden. The demand was therefore not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand for alleged shortages could be sustained on the basis of eye estimation and presumption without physical verification.

Analysis: The demand rested on figures estimated by the manager and not on actual weighment or physical verification of the stock. The department itself accepted part of the stock after verification and dropped those proceedings, which showed that actual verification was feasible. In the absence of proof of shortage or clandestine removal, the demand could not be upheld merely because an estimate had been given at the time of inspection. The burden to establish clandestine removal lay on the department and could not be discharged by presumption.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---