Central Information Commission
Manish Sharma vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 10 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCUM1/A/2022/645607
Manish Sharma ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, O/o Commissioner of
Customs(Export), RTI Cell, New
Custom House, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/05/2023
Date of Decision : 02/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 07/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.04.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Please share Bill of along with status (provisionally or finally assessed) from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 under IEC code 0305049437."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.04.2022 stating as under:
"The required information from the concerned section of Export Commissionerate as per records the details are as under:-
'As the information sought is about the status of the Bills of Entry, the same may be treated as NIL'."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.06.2022 held as under:-
"I have carefully examined the RTI application filed by the appellant and order passed by the CPIO. Further. I have gone through the facts of the case which have led to filing of this appeal. I find that the CPIO (Export) has disposed off the application stating that as the information sought is about the status of the Bills of Entry, the same may be treated as "Nil".
It is obvious from the written submission given by the applicant that reply to the RTI application was given to him within stipulated time frame. Further, the reply of his RTI Application was given after seeking information from the concerned section of this Commissionerate and the same was based on the reply received from concerned section. Further, it is observed that the information sought is of 'Bills of Entry' and since the data pertains to the 'Import Commissionerate, the Export Commissionerate cannot provide the requite data and therefore the application should be filed before the concerned Import CPIO.
In the light of the above observations and also on the above facts the Order No 04/20222-23 dated 28.04.2022-23 passed by CPIO is correct. Hence, Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"A The online RTI application was filed by the Appellant (on behalf of Nefab India Private Limited along with NOC from the Company) before the Chief Commissioner 2 of Customs, Mumbai- I Zone, which was then incorrectly and inadvertently transferred to CPIO (Exports) i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports).
B Vide Order dated 28.04.22, the Assistant Commissioner (Exports) rejected the application citing reason as "Nil".
C Against the above Order, Appellant filed a First appeal on the ground that the Order dated 28.04.22 was incorrect and unsustainable since it does not cite any reason to reject the appeal. The only reason cited is "Nil" which is vague and cryptic. This is certainly unsatisfactory, unjustifiable and unacceptable.
D Section 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act also puts a statutory obligation on the officer to provide sufficient reasons for the ground of the refusal of the application. Refer:
Raju Singh Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences F. No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001034 dated 24.05.2015 (Para No. 6). In this decision also, it was held that a PIO denying information under the RTI Act must show satisfactory reasons as to why information cannot be disclosed and clearly state the exemption provided under the RTI Act. Such reasons must be relevant. The opinion of the PIO must be reasonable and must be based on some material and cannot be a mere apprehension not supported by any evidence. General statements are not enough. Also refer to Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. Public Information Officer under RTI- MANU/CI/0046/2022 dated 15.02.2022 (Para No. 15).
E Further, under RTI Act, there are only four sections namely 8, 9, 11, and 24 under which an application may be rejected. Section 9 pertains to 'information having ability to infringe copyright subsisting in a person other than the State', Section 11 pertains to 'enquiries related to third party information', and Section 24 pertains to 'intelligence and security organisations established by the central government'. Ex-facie these sections are inapplicable to the case in hand. As far as Section 8 is concerned, it lists various exemptions from disclosure of information. However, none of the exemption categories apply to the present case. Nonetheless, even the CPIO did not cite any exemption in his Order dated 28.04.22.
F Against this Order dated 28.04.22, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which by default was lodged before the First Appellate Authority i.e., the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Mumbai.3
G The First Appellate Authority vide impugned Order dated 23.06.2022 rejected the appeal on the ground that information/ documents sought pertain to Imports whereas he has the charge for Exports.
H Appellant submits that rejection of appeal only on this ground is incorrect because the Appellant does not have the power to choose the CPIO or the First Appellate Authority, while filing the RTI application online. The Appellant can only file the RTI application before the Chief Commissioner of Customs as per the import / export zone. The responsibility of transferring the application to the correct CPIO lies with the office of the Chief Commissioner.
I Therefore, it is beyond the control of the Appellant that the transfer of RTI Application has been done incorrectly i.e., to the CPIO dealing with exports and not imports."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Ashmita Sharma through video conference. Respondent: S. Gore, Assistant Commissioner & Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the RTI Application was filed with the O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I Zone and not with the Export Commissionerate for them to be telling the Appellant to further pursue the matter afresh with the Import Commissionerate. She further stated that if that were the case, the Respondent CPIO had recourse to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to transfer the RTI Application to the concerned public authority, yet the matter has been inordinately languishing without any substantial outcome to their favour.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that their office received the instant RTI Application on their online portal and he is not in a position to comment on whether or not the same was marked to the Import Commissionerate or not by their head office.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the strength of the material on record does not indicate if the RTI Application was marked to the Import Commissionerate by the head office and the Respondent CPIO has also not bothered to ascertain the trajectory of the RTI Application from 4 their head office before presenting their case before the Commission, which suggests a lack of preparedness on their part. It is also pertinent to note that it was not appropriate for the FAA to advise the Appellant at that belated stage to approach the Import Commissionerate with a fresh RTI Application, when both of these Commissionerate(s) are part of the same conglomerate and in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the RTI Application could have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned CPIO. This has amounted to knowingly or unknowingly causing an unwarranted delay in the right to access the information of the Appellant.
Having observed as above, the Commission now directs the Respondent CPIO to adequately liaise with the concerned record holder (by seeking assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act) to procure the available information as sought for in the RTI Application and provide it directly to the Appellant, free of cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5