Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar Khandelwal vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 17 October, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOCMI/C/2021/139486
Sunil Kumar Khandelwal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Addl. Director General of Foreign
Trade, RTI Cell, 26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Chennai - 600006,
Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/10/2022
Date of Decision : 14/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 16/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 26/08/2021
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/09/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2021 seeking the following information regarding import of Code No. 76020010 , Commodity: Aluminium Scrap ISRI Code Tablet, Tabo to USA, Venezuela and UAE, respectively, from Chennai Port:1
"1). Please inform about the rate of custom duty and GST charged on the value of Rs. 75,55,069.00.
2). Please inform about the rate of custom duty and GST charged on the value of Rs. 33,04,68,644.00.
3). Please inform about the rate of custom duty and GST charged on the value of Rs. 55,53,967.00.
4). Please arrange to send certified copies of Invoices and packing list of above there items."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 26.08.2021 as under:-
"Please refer to your RTI application dated 16.08.2021. In this connection you are requested to approach the concerned Customs and GST authorities to get the duty structure for the items mentioned in your application.
Your original application along with the postal order is returned here with."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to filed a First Appeal and he direct to approach the commission.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Rishikesh Riddhi, Dy. DGFT & CPIO present through video conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO explained the context of the reply provided to the Complainant submitting that since the Complainant sought for all invoices and packing list, the information pertained to multiple custom authorities and it could not have been possible for his office to provide such information in a composite form.2
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the reply of the CPIO is not cogent or specific on the lines of the explanation tendered by the CPIO during the hearing. However, the said observation does not yet call for any action under Section 20 or 18(2) of the RTI Act as the Commission is unable to ascribe any malafides to the reply of the CPIO.
However, the CPIO is advised to provide cogent replies to the RTI Application(s) in future keeping in with the spirit of the RTI Act that envisages due assistance to be provided to the RTI Applicants in accessing "information".
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3