Uncorroborated admission and denied cross-examination cannot sustain foreign exchange penalty where mistake of fact is available.

Penalty under foreign exchange law cannot be sustained on an uncorroborated admission where the charge is not supported by material particulars and requested cross-examination of the co-noticee is denied. The evidentiary foundation was found insufficient because the adjudication relied mainly on the appellant's admission and a co-noticee's statement without independent corroboration. A bona fide mistake of fact was also recognised as a legally available defence capable of negating culpability. The penalty order was therefore quashed insofar as it related to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty under section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could be sustained solely on the basis of an admission statement without corroboration and despite denial of cross-examination, and whether the appellant could rely on a bona fide mistake of fact.

Analysis: The adjudication rested principally on the appellant's admission statement and the statement of a co-noticee, but there was no independent corroboration in material particulars. The order also did not set out the contents of the documents said to support the charge, and the requested cross-examination of the co-noticee was not allowed. In these circumstances, the evidentiary basis for fastening liability was found insufficient. The plea that the appellant acted under a mistake of fact was treated as a legally available defence, since a bona fide mistake relating to fact can negate culpability.

Conclusion: The penalty order was not sustainable and was quashed insofar as it related to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned penalty could not stand on an uncorroborated admission and the appellant's case was covered by a mistake of fact defence.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty imposed on the basis of an uncorroborated admission, without effective opportunity for cross-examination and without material particulars supporting the charge, cannot be sustained where the factual foundation for contravention is not established.

---