Retraction of statement cannot override corroborated evidence; penalty reduced where confiscation made the original punishment excessive.

Retraction of an earlier statement did not defeat liability where the statement was voluntary and was independently corroborated by seized documents, employee evidence, recovery of money, and surrounding circumstances; the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange law was therefore maintained. However, because the seized amount had already been confiscated, the original monetary penalty was treated as excessive and was reduced, giving the appellant partial relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's liability for contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the basis of the recorded statements and seized material, and whether the penalty required reduction in view of confiscation of the seized amount.

Analysis: The recorded statements of the appellant were made on different dates and contained detailed admissions about receiving and making payments on instructions from a person resident outside India. The retraction was treated as of limited weight because it was unsupported by corroborative material. The statements were found to be corroborated by the employees' evidence, the documentary material seized, the recovery of a substantial amount of money, and the surrounding circumstances. The finding of contravention under the relevant provisions was therefore maintained. At the same time, since the seized amount had already been confiscated, the penalty originally imposed was considered excessive and required reduction.

Conclusion: The contravention findings were upheld, but the penalty was reduced and the appellant received partial relief.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was sustained on merits, but the monetary penalty was moderated in fairness after accounting for confiscation of the seized amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon when it is voluntary and independently corroborated by seized documents, witness evidence, and surrounding circumstances; however, the penalty may be reduced where confiscation of the seized amount renders the original punishment excessive.

---