Retraction of inculpatory statement may still sustain foreign exchange penalty when voluntary, corroborated, and unexplained facts support adverse inference.

A retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on in foreign exchange contravention proceedings if it is voluntary, true and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The tribunal treated the recovered currency, the contemporaneous admission and the supporting facts as sufficient proof of contravention. The retraction made after 37 days, without evidence of coercion or threat, was not accepted as prompt or credible and did not erase the statement's evidentiary value. The tribunal also held that the department must prove guilt to a prudent and reasonable degree, and that unexplained facts within the person proceeded against's special knowledge can justify an adverse inference. On these principles, the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for contravention of foreign exchange restrictions could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's retracted admission statement and the surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The recovered currency, the contemporaneous admission by the appellant, and the supporting circumstances were treated as sufficient evidence of contravention. The retraction came after 37 days and was unsupported by proof of coercion or threat, so it was not treated as a prompt or credible retraction. In such circumstances, a retracted statement does not lose all evidentiary value if it is found to be voluntary and true. The burden on the department in such proceedings is one of proving guilt to a prudent and reasonable degree, and facts within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against may justify an adverse inference when left unexplained.

Conclusion: The contravention was proved and the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the adjudication order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted inculpatory statement can be relied upon in quasi-criminal proceedings if it is found to be voluntary and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, and unexplained facts within the accused's special knowledge may support an adverse inference.

---