Voluntary retracted confession can sustain foreign exchange contravention where retraction is unsubstantiated and no prejudice is shown.

A voluntary confessional statement, even if later retracted, may be relied upon in foreign exchange proceedings where the retraction is unsupported by evidence of inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means. The tribunal also found that denial of one cross-examination request and alleged non-supply of relied upon documents did not vitiate the adjudication because no prejudice was shown and the appellant's own confession constituted independent material. On that basis, the finding of contravention was sustained, the penalty order was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a retracted confessional statement could be relied upon for sustaining the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange law. (ii) Whether denial of cross-examination and alleged non-supply of relied upon documents vitiated the adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether a retracted confessional statement could be relied upon for sustaining the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The appellant's confession was retracted, but the retraction was not supported by any material showing inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means. The decision proceeded on the principle that a confession is admissible if it is voluntary, and that a retracted confession is not barred from being acted upon where it appears truthful and is voluntarily made. The reliance placed on authorities treating judgments as context-specific also supported rejection of a mechanical reading of precedents.

Conclusion: The retracted confession was held capable of being relied upon and the finding of contravention was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination and alleged non-supply of relied upon documents vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The request to cross-examine one witness had been denied, but the order found that this did not vitiate the proceedings in the presence of the appellant's own confessional statement forming independent material against him. As to non-supply of relied upon documents, the reply to the show cause notice contained no such challenge, and no prejudice was shown on that account. The adjudication was therefore not found to suffer from procedural illegality affecting the result.

Conclusion: The adjudication was not vitiated by denial of cross-examination or the alleged non-supply of documents.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order under the foreign exchange law was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary confessional statement, even if later retracted, may be relied upon where the retraction is unsubstantiated and no procedural prejudice is shown to have vitiated the adjudication.

---