Corroborated retracted statements under FERA can sustain contravention findings and justify penalties and confiscation.

A retracted statement can still support a finding of contravention under FERA when it is substantially corroborated by independent documentary and oral evidence. Here, the Tribunal noted corroboration from seized documents, bank records, telephone bills, witness statements, and account movements showing receipt and disbursement of foreign-exchange related payments through accounts in different names. On that evidentiary trail, it treated the contraventions under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) as proved and sustained the linked penalties and confiscation, finding no material infirmity or disproportionality in the adjudication order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant contravened Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by receiving and disbursing foreign-exchange related payments as alleged. (ii) Whether the penalties and confiscation of amounts imposed under the impugned order were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant contravened Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by receiving and disbursing foreign-exchange related payments as alleged.

Analysis: The appellant's own statements, though retracted, were found to be specific and detailed and were supported by seized documents, bank records, telephone bills, and the statements of other witnesses, including the bank managers, the employee handling the transactions, and persons who received amounts. The material showed that accounts in different names were used to receive drafts, cash, and telegraphic transfers and to disburse the amounts as instructed by a person resident outside India. The Tribunal held that the corroboration was sufficient and that the absence of cross-examination in the circumstances did not displace the evidentiary value of the material relied upon.

Conclusion: The contraventions under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) were proved against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties and confiscation of amounts imposed under the impugned order were sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the confiscated amounts were linked to the proven contraventions through the admitted and corroborated transaction trail, the seized records, and the bank account movements. It also found that the quantum of penalties was proportionate to the amounts involved and that there was no material infirmity warranting interference with the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The penalties and confiscation were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the adjudication order was left undisturbed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may sustain a finding of contravention where it is substantially corroborated by independent documentary and oral evidence, and the adjudicatory authority may rely on such corroborated material to uphold penalties and confiscation under FERA.

---