Retracted Statement Can Sustain Foreign Exchange Contravention When Independently Corroborated by Seized and Admitted Evidence

A retracted statement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 may still be relied upon where it is independently corroborated by seized drafts, envelopes, recipient lists, and other surrounding material. The corroborative record also supported the same factual matrix as the admissions of other persons, so the finding of contravention was upheld. On penalty, the tribunal found no basis to treat the sanction as excessive or disproportionate in light of the nature of the violation and the record, and therefore declined interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's retracted statement could be relied upon to sustain the finding of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed was excessive or unwarranted in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's retracted statement could be relied upon to sustain the finding of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The statement recorded from the appellant was not the sole basis of the adjudication. The seized drafts, envelopes, lists of intended recipients, and related material furnished independent corroboration of the transactions. The subsequent retraction was not accepted as sufficient to displace the evidentiary value of the statement, particularly where the surrounding material and admissions of other persons supported the same factual matrix.

Conclusion: The retracted statement was admissible and, being corroborated by independent evidence, the finding of contravention was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was excessive or unwarranted in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The amount involved in the contravention was substantial and the penalty imposed was considered in light of the nature of the violation and the supporting material on record. No basis was found to treat the penalty as disproportionate or unreasonable.

Conclusion: The penalty was not excessive and did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the adjudication order imposing penalties was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon where it is supported by independent corroborative evidence, and the penalty will not be interfered with unless shown to be excessive or unsupported by the record.

---