Retraction evidence and seized documents can prove foreign exchange contravention, while penalty may be reduced for excessiveness.

Retraction of a statement does not defeat liability where it is unsupported by independent material and is corroborated by seized documents and surrounding evidence. The Tribunal held that receipt and transmission of funds without requisite authorization were proved and sustained the finding of contravention. It also found the penalty excessive because the seized amount had already been confiscated, and therefore reduced the penalty, granting only limited relief while maintaining liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contravention of the foreign exchange law was established on the basis of the appellant's statements and the seized documents, and whether the penalty required interference on quantum.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellant's retraction was not supported by independent material and that the statements recorded from him were corroborated by the documents seized during search. The Tribunal accepted that the evidence established receipt and transmission of funds without the requisite authorization, and held that the contraventions stood proved. At the same time, it noted that the seized amount had already been confiscated and that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The contraventions were upheld, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 3,77,000, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the finding of liability for contravention was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon where it is corroborated by seized documents and surrounding evidence, and the penalty may be moderated where confiscation of the seized amount has already taken place.

---