Retracted statements and statutory presumption sustained contravention findings where coercion was not proved and foreign currency was seized.

Retracted statements remained admissible where the alleged retraction was not satisfactorily proved, its service was unestablished, and there was no reliable material showing inducement, threat, or coercion. The seized foreign currency and surrounding record continued to support the finding of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the appellant did not discharge the burden under the statutory presumption. Mere retraction, without proof that the original statement was improperly procured, was insufficient to displace its evidentiary value, so the penalty and confiscation were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's retracted statements could be relied upon to sustain the finding of contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the consequential penalty and confiscation.

Analysis: The retraction was not accepted because the alleged affidavit of retraction was not satisfactorily proved, its service on the respondent was not established, and there was no reliable material showing that the statements were obtained by inducement, threat, or coercion. The seized foreign currency and the surrounding record supported the adjudicating authority's finding, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden cast under the statutory presumption. Mere retraction, without proof of improper procurement of the statement, was insufficient to displace the evidentiary value of the inculpatory statement.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the order of penalty and confiscation were upheld against the appellant.

---