Documentary evidence and recorded statement sustained foreign exchange contravention despite later retraction and bald denial.

Seized documents showing remittances from abroad for distribution in India were sufficient, by themselves, to establish contravention under section 9(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant's statement recorded under section 40 corroborated the documentary record, and its later retraction did not displace its evidentiary value because it substantially tallied with the seized material. The appellant did not effectively challenge the panchnama or produce contrary evidence to disprove recovery of the documents, and the same documentary record also sustained the charge under section 9(1)(d). The absence of a detailed break-up of the remitted amounts did not undermine the finding of contravention, which was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of contravention under sections 9(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustainable on the basis of the seized documents and the appellant's statement.

Analysis: The seized documents showed remittances from abroad for distribution in India and, by themselves, were sufficient to establish contravention under section 9(3). The appellant's statement recorded by the Enforcement Officers under section 40 supported the documentary material, and the subsequent retraction did not displace its evidentiary value because the contents of the statement substantially tallied with the seized documents. The appellant did not effectively challenge the panchnama or produce evidence to disprove recovery of the documents, and the documentary record also sustained the charge under section 9(1)(d). The absence of a detailed break-up of the remitted amounts did not undermine the charge under section 9(3).

Conclusion: The finding of contravention under sections 9(3) and 9(1)(d) was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Documentary evidence, corroborated by a recorded statement, can sustain a finding of contravention where the appellant offers only a bald denial and does not effectively rebut the seized material.

---