Foreign exchange contravention over seized currency upheld where inconsistent explanations and contemporaneous admissions supported the finding.

In proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, inconsistent explanations about the source and ownership of seized currency, together with contemporaneous admissions and corroboration from the manager's statement, supported the finding that the amount was received on behalf of a person resident outside India otherwise than through an authorised dealer. The later retraction was found unconvincing, and the circular relied on by the appellant was treated as addressing a different context. On those facts, the confiscation of the currency and the penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of currency and the penalty imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The appellant had given inconsistent versions regarding the source and ownership of the money. The initial statement recorded at the time of seizure was corroborated by the contemporaneous statement of the manager, and the later retraction did not furnish a convincing explanation for departing from the original admission. The circular relied upon by the appellant dealt with a different context and, on the facts found, did not displace the concurrent conclusion that receipt of the amount on behalf of a person resident outside India, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, attracted section 9(1)(b). The plea that confiscation was not mandatory also did not assist the appellant in view of the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld and the challenge to the findings of contravention failed.

---