Page 23 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 15th April, 2020 xxi
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Contd.)
— Section 4 - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES ........... 209
— Section 44(1) - See under MONEY-LAUNDERING ............... 209
— Section 44(1)(a) - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES ........ 209
— Section 44(1)(c) - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES ........ 209
— See also under MONEY-LAUNDERING ................ 209
— Section 71 - See under MONEY-LAUNDERING ................. 209
Prohibited goods’ redemption, permissibility thereof - See under
REDEMPTION FINE ................................ 249
Prosecution of offence under Money Laundering Act, scope of
investigations and trial - See under PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 (PMLA) ........................ 209
Public Notice cannot be a ground for denial of drawback otherwise
admissible by Notification - See under DRAWBACK .............. 254
Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must
be construed objectively with reference to language used in order itself —
J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ............................ 237
Quantum of penalty - See under PENALTY ..................... 298
Reason to believe vis-à-vis suspicion in seizure of goods - See under
SEIZURE ORDER .................................. 237
Redemption fine - Foreign currency belonging to Petitioner No. 2 seized
from Petitioner No. 1 who is merely the carrier - Owner of currency being
known (Petitioner No. 2) and both the petitioners being before the
Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the
Revisionary Authority, there could, undisputedly, be no question of
releasing the currency to Petitioner No. 1 - Setting aside of Order-in-
Appeal by Revisionary Authority, wholesale, thereby rendering the
seized currency irredeemable, even by Petitioner No. 2, unreasonable -
Petitioner No. 2 could certainly be permitted to redeem the currency -
Redemption allowed even in case of ‘prohibited goods’ in view of Section
125 of Customs Act, 1962 - Foreign currency not liable to absolute
confiscation and to be returned to Petitioner No. 2 on payment of
redemption fine - Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 read with the
provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 — Raju Sharma v.
Union of India (Del.) ................................... 249
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— Excess duty paid on import of machinery as part of turnkey project -
Delay in processing refund claim - Petitioner aggrieved by impugned
order calling upon petitioner to produce documentary evidences for
purpose of examining aspect of unjust enrichment - HELD : Order
impugned clearly and unequivocally indicates that petitioners entitled
for refund and interest - However, as per reasoning of authority passing
impugned order, petitioner failing to establish that duty amount not
based on end-user or consumers - Process involved in processing refund
casts serious duty upon concerned officer to advert to facts pleaded
before authority for coming to conclusion that though refund payable,
same required to be deposited and paid in Consumer Fund for want of
any document or other evidence to indicate that payment of refund
would not result into “unjust enrichment” to recipient - Impugned order
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  39