Retracted statements may still sustain foreign exchange liability when voluntary and supported by surrounding circumstances.

Penalty and confiscation under foreign exchange law were said to be sustainable where the appellants were found in possession of substantial currency but failed to explain lawful possession satisfactorily. The Tribunal's stated approach was that a retracted inculpatory statement is not automatically excluded and may still be relied upon if it appears voluntary and is supported by surrounding circumstances. An unsubstantiated allegation of threat or coercion was held insufficient to displace the recorded statements, and the adjudication order was sustained on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and confiscation imposed for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could be sustained on the basis of the appellants' recorded statements notwithstanding their subsequent retraction.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the appellants were found in possession of a substantial amount of currency and failed to explain its lawful possession satisfactorily. It further held that a retracted statement is not automatically rejected and may be relied upon if it appears voluntary and is supported by surrounding circumstances. The allegation of threat or coercion was not substantiated, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in acting upon the inculpatory statements to uphold the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty and confiscation failed, and the adjudication order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected on merits, leaving the penalty and confiscation undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted inculpatory statement may be relied upon to sustain liability if the statement is found voluntary and the surrounding circumstances support its truth, and an unsubstantiated allegation of coercion will not by itself displace the adjudication.

---