Retacted confession and corroboration supported foreign exchange penalty despite an unproven coercion claim.

A retracted confession may sustain liability where it is corroborated by independent documentary and circumstantial evidence, and a bare allegation of coercion does not discharge the burden of proving duress. The tribunal found admissions that the appellant had made payments to persons outside India and borrowed foreign currency abroad, and it accepted corroboration from documents and the appellant's own agents. On that basis, the contraventions of the foreign exchange law were established and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of sections 9(1)(a) and 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustainable in view of the challenge to the voluntariness of the confession and the alleged lack of supporting evidence.

Analysis: The record showed admissions by the appellant regarding payment to persons outside India and borrowing foreign currency abroad. The plea that the statement was obtained under coercion was rejected because it was unsupported by any material and the burden of proving duress was not discharged. The admitted and retracted statement was found to be corroborated by documentary material and by the statements of the appellant's own agents. The authority therefore accepted the evidence as sufficient to establish the contraventions and found no reason to interfere with the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the challenge to the adjudication order failed.

Final Conclusion: The order affirming the penalty was sustained on merits, and the appellant's liability to deposit the imposed amount remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession may be relied upon to sustain liability when it is corroborated in material particulars by independent documentary and circumstantial evidence, and a bare allegation of coercion does not displace the burden of proof.

---