Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Venu Akula vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 12 June, 2020

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सच ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                            File no.: CIC/DGOFT/A/2019/142429

In the matter of:
Venu Akula                                                     ...Appellant
                                       VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT),
1st floor, N S Building, Opp VCA Ground Civil Lines,
Nagpur- 440001
                                                              ...Respondent
RTI application filed on           :   19/03/2019
CPIO replied on                    :   12/04/2019
First appeal filed on              :   13/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order    :   28/05/2019
Second Appeal dated                :   27/08/2019
Date of Hearing                    :   11/06/2020
Date of Decision                   :   11/06/2020

The following were present:

Appellant: Advocate Dominic Mario Fernandes, the representative of the appellant, heard over phone.

Respondent: Shri M K Mikhare, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade & the CPIO, heard over phone.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought to inspect the applications/records/documents/ which are pertaining to the authorizations/licenses issued or granted, to the applicants for import of Maize corn, which has been imported by purporting to be an actual user as per Clause/Para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade policy for the import of Maize Corn (popcorn), from 27/07/2018 to till date.
1
1. Provide the convenient date and time including the place of office, so that the appellant can in person inspect the authorizations/ Licences issued by the Office to the applicants for the import of Maize corn, which has been imported by purporting to be an actual user as per Clause Para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade policy [2015 - 2020] for the import of Maize Corn (Popcorn) from 27/07/2018 to till date.
2. Provide the applicable fee for the inspection and to take the photocopies of the same, along with the mode of payment of fee.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO has not provide the requisite information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incorrect, ambiguous, misleading and unsatisfactory reply was provided to him by the CPIO. He stated that a bare perusal of his RTI application categorically reveals the fact that the appellant had not sought any information pertaining to the authorizations/ Licenses issued for DFIA for import of Maize corn but has sought information concerning the authorizations/ Licences issued to the applicants for the import of Maize corn, which has been imported by purporting to be an actual user as per Clause Para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade policy. The Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) Scheme is distinct from Clause /Para 2.20 of Foreign Trade Policy as the Duty Free Import Authorization[DFIA] is a scheme provided under Chapter - 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy under which the DFIA License/ scrip holder shall be entitled to allow Duty free imports by exempting payment of the prevailing Basic Customs Duty. Whereas as per the understanding and the knowledge of the appellant as per Clause 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade has the discretion to issue authorization to any person who intends to import a particular commodity which is restricted/ canalized as per the said Policy. As per conjoint study of Clause 2.10, Clause 9.03, Clause 9.31 of Foreign Trade Policy issued by the DGFT, Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad's Order dated 26.07.2018 in W.P. No. 2302 of 2018, read along with the recent Policy Circular No. -27/2015-2020 dated 26.07.2019 issued by the DGFT, it is understood that the authorization to import Maize corn needs to be issued only to the applicants/ persons/ importers who fulfil the Actual User Condition as stipulated under Clause 2.10 of Foreign Trade Policy.
2
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 12.04.2019 and further added that they have not issued any licence either under DFIA or under clause

2.20 of Foreign Trade Policy and hence no information can be provided to the appellant.

Observations:

Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO based on the fact that the CPIO while giving his reply has incorrectly limited the subject matter to the licenses issued under Duty Free Import Authorization(DFIA), whereas the appellant had sought information concerning the authorizations/ Licences issued to the applicants for the import of Maize corn, which has been imported by purporting to be an actual user as per Clause Para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade policy. During the hearing, the CPIO explained that no license was issue either for DFIA or under clause 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy for the particular period and the particular commodity as mentioned by the appellant in his RTI application. The Commission finds the submissions of the representative of the appellant as justified who during the hearing explained that the licenses issued under DFIA are separate from the licenses issued under clause 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy as was seen after perusing the reply of the CPIO that the information given by the CPIO was limited to the licenses issued under DFIA and not as per clause 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy as originally sought by the appellant. Under such circumstances, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the information sought by him in his RTI application for the particular period mentioned therein and state clearly the position as was stated during the hearing..
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 15 days after the lockdown is lifted under intimation to the Commission.
3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                           Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                   Information Commissioner (सच
                                                              ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत          त)


A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
 दनांक / Date




                                      4