Retracted confession and corroboration sustained the foreign exchange contravention finding, leaving the penalty intact.

Receipt of money on behalf of a person resident outside India through an unauthorised channel was found to amount to contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where the appellant's later retraction of his statement was delayed, unsupported by evidence, and not shown to have been obtained by threat or coercion. The burden to prove involuntariness remained on the appellant and was not discharged. The statement was corroborated by seized documents, cash recovery, and surrounding circumstances, and the tribunal noted that a retracted confession may be relied on when voluntary, true, and supported by corroboration. The penalty was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's receipt of money on behalf of a person resident outside India, on the basis of a retracted statement, constituted contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and justified the penalty imposed.

Analysis: The appellant admitted receiving the amount through an unauthorized channel on instructions of his son-in-law, a person resident outside India. The later retraction was made after a delay and was unsupported by evidence. The burden to establish that the statement was obtained by threat or coercion lay on the appellant, and that burden was not discharged. The statement was also corroborated by seized documents, recovery of cash, and surrounding circumstances. A retracted confession may be acted upon when it is found to be voluntary and true and is supported by corroboration.

Conclusion: The contravention was proved, the penalty was held to be justified, and the appeal failed.

---