Clandestine removal requires tangible proof; mere delay in bag stamping did not justify confiscation or penalty.

Clandestine removal was not proved where the quantity recorded in the RG-1 register was physically found in the premises and the only objection was that the bags were not fully stitched or stamped at the time of inspection. The requirement to mark bags under Rule 51 was to be complied with as soon as practicable after packing or readiness for removal, so immediate stamping failure did not by itself show that another set of goods had already been removed or that there was double transport. In the absence of tangible evidence beyond presumption, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation and penalty were justified on the allegation that the goods were intended for clandestine removal despite the goods being found in the store room and the absence of conclusive evidence of removal.

Analysis: The allegation rested on the assumption that entries in the R.G.1 register meant the goods must already have been fully packed and ready for removal, while the bags found in the store room were not fully stitched or stamped. However, the evidence showed that the exact quantity entered in the register was physically available in the premises, and the marking requirement under Rule 51 was to be complied with as soon as practicable after packing or readiness for removal. On the facts, the failure to stamp the bags immediately did not, by itself, establish that a different set of bags had already been removed or that there was a double transport. The finding of clandestine removal therefore remained a presumption unsupported by tangible proof.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---