Foreign exchange contravention upheld where retracted confession was corroborated and penalty sustained as justified

Contravention of section 8(1) and section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld where foreign exchange and Indian currency were recovered from the appellant and his earlier statement was corroborated by seizure records and connected witness statements. The appellant's later retraction was rejected because no evidence showed coercion or threat, and the statement remained supported by independent material and surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal also held that denial of cross-examination did not amount to a natural justice breach, as no specific basis was shown for it. On the evidence, the appellant failed to explain lawful source and possession, and the penalty was sustained as justified and not excessive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened section 8(1) and section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal arose from recovery of foreign exchange and Indian currency from the appellant, supported by his statement, the statements of other persons connected with the transaction, and the seizure record. The Tribunal held that the appellant's later retraction did not displace the earlier confession because the retraction was unsupported by evidence of coercion or threat, and the statement was sufficiently corroborated by independent material and surrounding circumstances. The request for cross-examination was also rejected because no specific basis was shown to make denial of cross-examination amount to a breach of natural justice. On the evidence, the appellant failed to explain the source and possession of the foreign exchange.

Conclusion: The contravention under section 8(1) and section 8(2) was upheld, and the penalty was found justified and not excessive.

---