Voluntary statements and corroboration under foreign exchange law sustained contravention, penalty, and confiscation.

Statements recorded by the Enforcement Officer were treated as voluntary and reliable because the later reply did not allege threat or duress, and the claimed misunderstanding was only attributed to limited English knowledge. Corroboration from the mahazar and surrounding materials supported the admissions, and a mere affidavit could not displace the statement. On that basis, receipt of amounts on behalf of a person resident outside India and payments made in India were established, the burden regarding use of an unauthorised channel was held discharged by the record, and the finding of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, together with penalty and confiscation, was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's statement was voluntary and reliable, and whether the established facts justified the finding of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 together with the penalty and confiscation.

Analysis: The appellant's statements before the Enforcement Officer were treated as voluntary because the later reply did not allege threat or duress, but only a misunderstanding attributed to limited English knowledge. The statement was corroborated by the mahazar and by the surrounding materials. Once the statement was accepted as true and voluntary, the amounts received on behalf of a person resident outside India and the payments made in India stood established. The challenge based on a mere affidavit could not displace the admissions contained in the statement. The reasoning also supported the view that the burden regarding receipt through an unauthorised channel had been discharged by the record.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld, and the penalty as well as confiscation were sustained.

---