Clandestine removal may be proved by cumulative private records and statements; duty demand survived, but confiscation and penalty fell.

Private slips, a dyeing note book, statutory lot registers and witness statements were treated as mutually corroborative evidence of clandestine removal, and the Tribunal held that such removal can be proved by oral, circumstantial and documentary material taken together rather than by direct evidence alone. On that basis, the additional duty demand was confirmed. Confiscation of goods and penalty, however, were not sustained on the facts placed before the Tribunal, and those punitive components were set aside while the duty demand was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of production slips, dyeing note book, statutory lot register and statements established clandestine removal and justified confirmation of the duty demand; (ii) Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty were sustainable on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of production slips, dyeing note book, statutory lot register and statements established clandestine removal and justified confirmation of the duty demand.

Analysis: The private slips recovered from the director's office, the dyeing note book, the statements of the director, dyeing master and grey fabric suppliers, and the entries in the statutory lot register were found to be mutually corroborative. The Tribunal held that clandestine removal in such matters may be proved by oral, circumstantial and documentary material taken together, and not only by direct evidence. The appellant's denial of knowledge of the slips and note book was not accepted in view of the recovery of those records from the office table and the supporting statements of suppliers showing receipt and return of processed fabrics without gate passes. The Tribunal also found that the cases cited by the appellant on the sufficiency of private records were distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal was held proved and the demand of additional duty was confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty were sustainable on the facts.

Analysis: Once the dispute was confined to the demand of duty, the Tribunal held that the order of confiscation and penalty could not be sustained on the facts placed before it. The impugned order was therefore interfered with to that extent, while the evidentiary basis for confirming duty was maintained.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the punitive and confiscatory components were annulled, while the duty demand survived.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for clandestine removal, a finding may rest on cumulative corroboration from private records, statutory registers and witness statements, and confiscation or penalty may be severed from the duty demand where the punitive order is not otherwise sustainable on the record.

---