Natural justice and corroborated statements sustain FERA contravention findings despite unavailable witnesses and denied cross-examination.

Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication where summons had been issued, the witnesses were unavailable, and the material relied on had been furnished with original documents shown at hearing. The tribunal held that the appellant's statement remained voluntary because no inducement, threat, coercion, or duress was shown, and the statement was corroborated by seized documents recovered from different premises, including signed papers and matching amounts. On that evidentiary basis, contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld, and the adjudication order and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of cross-examination and alleged non-supply of material vitiated the adjudication on the ground of violation of natural justice; (ii) Whether the appellant's statements and the seized documents furnished sufficient proof of contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether denial of cross-examination and alleged non-supply of material vitiated the adjudication on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: Summons had been issued to the witnesses, but they were not available. The material relied upon in the proceedings had been furnished, and the original documents were shown during hearing. In these circumstances, the absence of cross-examination could not be attributed to any fault in the adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's statements and the seized documents furnished sufficient proof of contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appellant's statement had not been retracted in a manner showing inducement, threat, coercion, or duress, and no material was brought to discredit its voluntariness. The statement was supported by seized documents recovered from different premises, including documents bearing the appellant's signatures and matching amounts. The evidentiary material was treated as adequately corroborative of the contraventions found by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order and the penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement, when not shown to have been procured by coercion or other improper means and when corroborated by seized documents, may validly form the basis of a finding of contravention; inability to produce witnesses for cross-examination does not by itself vitiate the adjudication where the witnesses are unavailable and the material has otherwise been supplied.

---