Retraction of confession does not defeat foreign exchange liability when the admission is voluntary and corroborated by other evidence.

Voluntary admissions supported by corroborative evidence may sustain liability under foreign exchange law even if later retracted. The tribunal treated the appellant's statement that he arranged an NRE draft and received money for a non-resident as voluntary, and found it corroborated by the recipient's statement and seized documents. The subsequent retraction was rejected because no material showed threat, coercion, or duress. On that basis, contravention of Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved and the penalty order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by receiving payment on behalf of a person resident outside India and making payment to such person, and whether the retracted confessional statement displaced the finding of guilt.

Analysis: The admission recorded from the appellant that he arranged the NRE draft and received money on behalf of the non-resident was treated as voluntary and was found to be corroborated by the statement of the recipient of the draft and by seized documents. The later retraction was rejected as an unsupported bald assertion, since no material was produced to establish threat, coercion, or duress. The reasoning also applied the settled principle that a retracted confession may be relied upon if it is voluntary and is supported by corroborative material.

Conclusion: The contravention of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved, and the penalty order was upheld.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession can be relied upon to sustain liability where it is found to be voluntary and is corroborated by other evidence, and a bare allegation of coercion without proof is insufficient to discard it.

---