Retracted confession and natural justice: Tribunal upheld corroborated FERA contraventions, rejected abetment, and reduced penalty.

A retracted statement remained admissible because it was voluntarily recorded in the appellant's handwriting, in a language he knew, and was independently corroborated by seized documents and surrounding circumstances. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication where the relied-upon material had been disclosed, the appellant had an opportunity to rebut it, and no prejudice was shown. On the merits, the Tribunal sustained only the FERA contraventions supported by admissions and documents, reduced the under-invoicing and penalty consequences, rejected the abetment charge for want of evidence of assistance, and set aside the later import-based allegations in the second appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's statements recorded during investigation were voluntary and could be relied upon despite later retraction; (ii) whether denial of cross-examination of co-noticees and witnesses vitiated the adjudication; (iii) whether the charges of under-invoicing and other foreign exchange contraventions under FERA were proved, including the charge of abetment; and (iv) what relief, if any, followed in the two appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's statements recorded during investigation were voluntary and could be relied upon despite later retraction.

Analysis: The statements were recorded in the appellant's own handwriting and in a language known to him, and they explained documents seized from his own and related premises. The subsequent retraction did not, by itself, dislodge their evidentiary value. The statements were corroborated by the seized documents and surrounding circumstances, and the Tribunal applied the settled principle that a retracted confession can be relied upon when supported by independent and cogent material.

Conclusion: The statements were held to be voluntary and admissible, and the appellant's retraction did not render them unusable.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of co-noticees and witnesses vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the documents relied upon were disclosed to the appellant through the show-cause notices and he had sufficient opportunity to rebut them. The Tribunal declined to rely on the statements of co-noticees, and the adjudication was supported by the appellant's own statements and seized material. In these circumstances, refusal of cross-examination caused no demonstrated prejudice and did not offend natural justice.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination was not treated as a ground to set aside the impugned orders.

Issue (iii): Whether the charges of under-invoicing and other foreign exchange contraventions under FERA were proved, including the charge of abetment.

Analysis: On the materials relating to the Centaur Chem consignments, the Tribunal accepted under-invoicing only to the extent admitted and corroborated by documents, and reduced the quantified contravention accordingly. It upheld the contraventions concerning payments routed abroad, use of the NRE account, and the attempted remittance to Switzerland where the record contained seized documents and admissions, but it did not sustain the abetment charge in relation to the bank officials because no evidence showed that the appellant aided or assisted those contraventions. In the separate appeal concerning imports in the names of Suru and Alcon, the Tribunal found the appellant's denials credible and held that the charge based on those imports was not established.

Conclusion: The Tribunal partly upheld the FERA contraventions, rejected the abetment charge, and set aside the finding relating to the later import allegations in the second appeal.

Issue (iv): What relief followed in the two appeals.

Analysis: The consolidated penalty in the first matter was reduced, the pre-deposit was directed to be adjusted, the confiscation of US$ 8200 was left undisturbed, and the second order was set aside to the extent it fastened liability on the appellant, with refund of the pre-deposit directed.

Conclusion: One appeal was allowed and the other was partly allowed, with consequential modification of penalty and refund directions.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained substantial but not complete relief: some foreign exchange contraventions were sustained with reduced monetary consequences, the abetment finding was set aside, and the later import-based allegations failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement remains admissible when voluntarily made and independently corroborated, and denial of cross-examination does not vitiate adjudication where the affected party had disclosure of the material and no prejudice is shown.

---