Retraction evidence under foreign exchange law can sustain penalty when corroborated by seized documents and statutory presumption.

A retracted statement was not treated as sufficient by itself for penalty under foreign exchange law; it was upheld only because it was corroborated by seized documents, including bank deposit slips, and by the statutory presumption under Section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The tribunal found the surrounding circumstances adequate to support the search and seizure material, and held that the violation of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) was proved, so the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for violation of foreign exchange law could be sustained on the basis of a retracted statement, and whether that statement stood sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence and the statutory presumption relating to seized documents.

Analysis: The retracted statement of the appellant could not, by itself, be treated as the sole foundation for penalty unless the department showed that it was voluntary and supported by other material. The record showed seizure of documents, including bank deposit slips, from the searched premises, and those documents were treated as corroborative of the appellant's involvement in the cash deposits. The statutory presumption under Section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was also applied in relation to the seized documents, and the surrounding circumstances were found sufficient to displace the challenge to the search and seizure version.

Conclusion: The retracted statement was held to be corroborated by independent material, the violation under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved, and the penalty was upheld.

---