Exchange-control adjudication: corroborated statements, inferred non-resident status, and no automatic right to cross-examination.

In exchange-control adjudication, corroborated statements and surrounding circumstances may establish that a remittance recipient was a non-resident, and the absence of the recipient's name in the show-cause notice caused no prejudice where the factual basis was otherwise clear. Prompt retraction, without supporting material, did not displace the evidentiary value of statements that were consistent on material particulars. A carrier who knowingly transports money for an unauthorised compensatory remittance is treated as participating in the prohibited transaction. Overheard conversation evidence, when corroborated by seizure and surrounding facts, was not treated as inadmissible hearsay, and there is no automatic right to cross-examination in such adjudication proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proceedings failed for want of proof that the remittance recipient was a non-resident and for absence of prejudice from the show-cause notice; (ii) whether the appellant's and the other statement relied on were voluntary and free from material contradiction despite retraction; (iii) whether a carrier who knowingly transports money for an unauthorised compensatory payment incurs contravention; (iv) whether the material relied on amounted to inadmissible hearsay and whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication.

Issue (i): whether the proceedings failed for want of proof that the remittance recipient was a non-resident and for absence of prejudice from the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The Court held that the recipient's non-resident status could be inferred from the surrounding materials and corroborative statements, and the appellant had produced no material to dislodge that inference. The absence of the recipient's name in the show-cause notice caused no prejudice because the proceedings and explanation clearly disclosed the factual basis on which the charge was founded.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant's and the other statement relied on were voluntary and free from material contradiction despite retraction.

Analysis: The Court found no material contradiction of such magnitude as to destroy the prosecution case. The earlier and later statements corroborated each other on material particulars, and the immediate retraction, without supporting material, did not displace the evidentiary value of the statements. The plea of threat or coercion was rejected as unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether a carrier who knowingly transports money for an unauthorised compensatory payment incurs contravention.

Analysis: The Court held that the appellant was not a mere innocent carrier. Having knowingly carried a large sum for an unauthorised remittance, he participated in the prohibited transaction and thereby attracted liability under the exchange control provisions.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (iv): whether the material relied on amounted to inadmissible hearsay and whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The conversation overheard by the appellant was treated as part of the chain of events and was corroborated by the subsequent seizure and surrounding circumstances, so it did not fall within the objection of hearsay in the sense urged. The Court also reiterated that adjudication proceedings of this nature do not confer a right to insist on cross-examination.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The findings of contravention and confiscation were upheld, and no substantial question of law was made out to interfere with the concurrent orders.

Ratio Decidendi: In exchange-control adjudication, corroborated statements and surrounding circumstances may sustain a finding of contravention, a prompt retraction by itself does not nullify such evidence, and there is no automatic right to cross-examination.

---