#Penalty Reduction

CESTAT Kolkata holds that mere control over premises where smuggled gold is found, coupled with inability to prove lawful possession, suffices to impose penalty under Section 112 - shifting the burden to the possessor to explain lawful origin. This clarifies that statutory liability under customs law extends beyond ownership to de facto control, impacting warehouse operators, agents, and third-party custodians.

Kerala High Court reduces bail bond penalty for sureties when accused absconds, affirming that leniency is permissible under BNS 2023 and equity demands proportionality.

The Securities Appellate Tribunal ruled that a director who has properly resigned cannot be penalized for post-resignation misconduct unless they retained de facto control or actively participated in the violations. This clarifies the boundary of accountability for former directors and protects compliant exiters from retrospective liability under SEBI’s enforcement regime.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that confiscation of goods under the Customs Act requires concrete evidence of IPR violation, not mere suspicion. The tribunal set aside arbitrary confiscation orders and reduced penalties, reinforcing that due process and reasoned adjudication are mandatory for enforcement actions under the IPR Enforcement Rules.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that surety forfeiture under Section 446 CrPC must be proportionate, reducing a Rs.50,000 penalty to Rs.10,000 where the accused’s bail default was isolated and unconnected to the surety. The decision reinforces that forfeiture is not automatic and must consider the surety’s lack of involvement in the accused’s absence.