Clandestine removal of electrical laminations upheld on evidence, but penalty reduced as excessive in the circumstances.

Evidence from customer statements and the appellants' own partners showed that goods invoiced as CRGO rolls and Torridel core were in substance electrical laminations supplied in coil and strip form. On that evidentiary basis, the finding of clandestine removal was sustained and the duty demand was upheld. However, considering the quantum of duty involved and the surrounding circumstances, the penalty was found excessive and was reduced to Rs. 25,000 in each case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods cleared under invoices describing them as CRGO rolls and Torridel core were in fact electrical laminations clandestinely removed, and whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The record included statements of the customers and of the proprietors/partners of the appellant firms. Those statements indicated that the supplies billed as CRGO rolls were treated as laminations and that lamination was being supplied in coil and strip form to the manufacturers. On that evidence, the finding that the clearances were clandestine removals of laminations could not be disturbed. At the same time, having regard to the quantum of duty involved and the surrounding circumstances, the penalty was considered excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld, the allegation of clandestine clearance was sustained, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000 in each case.

---