Central Information Commission
Mrv Stanley Paulus vs Cbec on 21 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/KY/A/2014/000667/SB
Dated 21.06.2016
Appellant : Shri V. Stanley Paulus,
A11, Shalom,
Tennis Club Enclave,
Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar,
Trivandrum695003.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Central Board of Excise & Customs.
North Block.
New Delhi1110001.
Date of Hearing : 21.06.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appellant:
RTI application filed on : 13.02.2014
CPIO's reply : 24.02.2014
First Appeal filed on : 11.03.2014
FAA's Order : 09.04.2014
Second appeal filed on : 30.06.2014
O R D E R
CIC/KY/A/2014/000667/SB Page 1
1. Shri V. Stanley Paulus filed an application dated 13.02.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Board of Customs & Central Excise seeking information regarding the payment of foreign currency as export payment, namely, (1) advise on whether export payment of foreign currency can be sent by the importer as export payment by courtier mode by Air since there is no bank available in the particular town/airport? And (2) if so, advise on what will be the maximum amount that can be remitted at a time which will be deposited in exporter's bank account stating the invoice number of export under courier export (clearance) Regulation 1998/2010 through the authorized courier licensed by the Commissioner under the above Regulation.
2. Shri V. Stanley Paulus filed an appeal dated 30.06.2014 before the Commission on the ground that his RTI application does not qualify as information as per the definition of information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant states that the CPIO himself had specifically stated in his reply that the information sought is readily available in the public domain and it may be obtained from the website. Hence, the contention that his application does not qualify as per definition in the RTI Act is not sustainable. The appellant requested the Commission to set aside the impugned order of the F.A.A. and direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri V. Stanley Paulus attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Piyush Bhardwaj, CPIO and Technical Officer, CBEC was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that information has not been provided to him in response to his RTI application on the plea that the information sought is in the form of queries or clarifications CIC/KY/A/2014/000667/SB Page 2 which do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent has informed him that the information sought is readily available in the public domain and can be obtained from the website of the Department. In view of this, the information sought by him has to be provided.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is in the nature of queries or questions, which do not constitute information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, information was not provided to the appellant. Decision:
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the respondent has mentioned in his reply that the information sought is readily available on the website of the Department. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide the link of the website, from where the information can be obtained, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided to both the parties free of cost.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/KY/A/2014/000667/SB Page 3 CIC/KY/A/2014/000667/SB Page 4