Statutory penalty ceilings preserve adjudicatory discretion; enhancement requires proof that the imposed penalty was improperly or disproportionately low.

A statutory maximum penalty under the foreign-exchange regime does not require imposition at the maximum level or justify enhancement merely because the penalty is below that ceiling. The adjudicating authority must exercise discretion judicially on the facts and evidence. Where the relevant material has been assessed and no improper exercise of discretion or disproportionately low penalty is established, enhancement is unwarranted. The analysis supports maintaining the penalty imposed on the company director.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on a company director for contraventions under the foreign-exchange regime warranted enhancement merely because it was below the statutory maximum.

Analysis: The statutory ceiling of up to three times the quantified sum involved prescribes only a maximum penalty and neither fixes a penalty nor mandates its imposition at the maximum level. The adjudicating authority retains discretion to determine the appropriate penalty judicially on the facts and evidence. The impugned order had evaluated the relevant material, and no basis was established to show that its discretion was exercised improperly or that the penalty was disproportionately low.

Conclusion: Enhancement of the penalty was not warranted; the issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

---