Retracted confession and corroborating evidence sustained foreign exchange liability, with penalty and confiscation upheld.

Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was held attracted where the appellant received payment on behalf of a person resident outside India without authorisation. The retracted statement was treated as voluntary because the allegation of coercion was unsupported, the retraction was not prompt, and the statement was corroborated by documentary and circumstantial evidence, including recovery of cash and associated papers. The claim that the money belonged to another person was not credibly proved. The contravention was therefore established, and the penalty and confiscation were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant contravened section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by receiving payment on behalf of a person resident outside India without authorisation, and whether the penalty and confiscation were justified.

Analysis: The appellant's retracted statement was examined along with the surrounding circumstances, including the recovery of a substantial cash amount and the documents found with it. The plea that the money belonged to another person was not supported by prompt claim or credible evidence. The retraction was not made at the earliest opportunity, and the allegation of threat or coercion was unsupported by evidence. The statement was found to be voluntary and corroborated by documentary and circumstantial material. The statutory prohibition under section 9(1)(b) was therefore attracted.

Conclusion: The contravention was proved and the penalty and confiscation were upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the adjudication order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession can form the basis of liability when it is found to be voluntary and is corroborated by documentary and circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proving coercion remains on the maker of the statement.

---