Cross-statute statements and unproved seized documents cannot, by themselves, sustain foreign exchange contravention findings.

A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be treated as substantive incriminating evidence in foreign exchange proceedings under the FERA because it was made for customs purposes and did not amount to an admission of under-invoicing or contravention. The seized documents were also held insufficient, because they were not properly proved or authenticated and lacked independent corroboration. In the absence of admissible evidence, the enforcement authority could not shift the burden to the appellant or draw an adverse inference. The contravention findings and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be treated as substantive evidence in proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the seized documents, relied upon to establish under-invoicing and contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, were admissible and sufficient to shift the burden to the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be treated as substantive evidence in proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is made for the purposes of customs proceedings and cannot, by that fact alone, be treated as an incriminating or confessional statement in proceedings under a different statute. The statement relied upon by the authorities did not amount to an admission by the appellant of under-invoicing or contravention of foreign exchange law. The appellate tribunal therefore erred in treating that statement as corroborative evidence for the foreign exchange proceedings.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellant in the foreign exchange proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized documents, relied upon to establish under-invoicing and contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, were admissible and sufficient to shift the burden to the appellant.

Analysis: The documents seized were not shown to have been proved and authenticated in the manner required for reliance upon foreign-sourced material. In the absence of proper authentication and independent corroboration, the initial burden remained on the enforcement authority. Without proof that the documents were credible admissible evidence, no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant and the burden could not be shifted to him merely on the basis of the seized papers.

Conclusion: The seized documents were inadmissible and insufficient to sustain the finding of contravention or to justify shifting the burden to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The findings of contravention and the penalties imposed under the foreign exchange proceedings were unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence recorded for one statutory regime cannot be used as substantive incriminating material in proceedings under another statute unless it is otherwise admissible and properly proved; unsupported seized documents cannot displace the initial burden of proof or justify an adverse inference.

---