Clandestine removal requires corroborative evidence; absent proof of actual input consumption and supporting material, the allegation fails.

Clandestine removal cannot be sustained on a single factor alone and must be proved by corroborative evidence, including material showing actual consumption of inputs and other supporting circumstances. The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's finding that the record did not disclose any infirmity in this requirement of proof. On that basis, the allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the Department's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegation of clandestine removal could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence showing actual consumption of inputs and other supporting material.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had recorded a categorical finding that clandestine removal had to be proved by evidence establishing actual consumption of inputs and related supporting circumstances. The record did not disclose infirmity in that finding. The reliance placed on earlier Tribunal decisions was consistent with the principle that clandestine removal cannot be established on a single factor alone and requires corroboration.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the Department's appeal failed.

---