Central Information Commission
M Ismail Gani vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai ... on 27 July, 2022
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/CUSCZ/A/2021/118110
M Ismail Gani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai-I Commissionerate (Airport),
RTI Cell, Anna International Terminal,
Chennai-600027, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/07/2022
Date of Decision : 21/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 13/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/11/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 02/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/04/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2020 seeking the following information related to deporting him from the Sri Lankan Airlines, Flight No. UL 122 on 08.10.2019:
1. "Certified copy of the Export General Manifest of flight UL 122 dated 8.10.2019 duly attested by Station Duty Officer, Customs, Chennai Airport.1
2. Copy of any report given by the Intelligence Officer, AIU to the Asst. Commissioner, AIU with the following details:
(i) Copy of any prior information or intelligence about the applicant
(ii) Date and time of interception of the applicant before boarding as of sl.no:1
(iii) Whether the applicant was intercepted by the I0 before stamping of immigration or after that
(iv) Time taken for off loading the baggage conducting the search and recovery if any with certified copy of search proceedings.
(v) For cancellation, of immigration stamping any report is given to the Immigration Authorities
(vi) For offloading the applicant along with the baggage any written requisition was made to the Airlines authority at the airport
(vii) Any endorsement is made in the Incident Register maintained at the Airport or any report was submitted to AC/ADC/Commissioner."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 13.11.2020 stating as under:
"Point No. 1: The details pertaining to the Passenger part of Export General Manifest are generated by the Airline Authorities or person in charge of the Aircraft as the Case may be in terms of Export Manifest (Aircraft) Regulations, 1976 and all such manifests furnished or transmitted to the Customs Authorities are not preserved by the International Airport Customs Authorities permanently unless the same is required in connection with any case registered under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or for any other identical purposes. On verification of the available records, it seen that the manifest copy Flight No. UL 122/08.10.2019 is not available, as the same is not preserved, as there was no cases pertaining to any -passenger of the said flight. It is also mentioned that those manifests are also containing several third party information includes the name, passport numbers etc. Hence, disclosure of such third party information in the absence of any larger cause of public interest is deprecated in terms of the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the Applicant has not cited any such It is open to the applicant to approach the concerned Airliner for complete information in this regard.
Point No. 2(i): Disclosure of any information including the correspondences or reports of intelligence Units exchanged or communicated to other authorities, any information of the Intelligence Units including any report / correspondences so referred to in the above RTI Application may lead to 2 identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement by any person or authorities to Air Intelligence Unit, hence disclosure of the same may endanger of life or physical safety of those connected persons or Officers. Hence, the same are not disclosed as per the provisions of the section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. 2005.
Point No 2(ii): On 08.10.2019 at about 07 .45 AM Point No. 2(iii): After clearance by Immigration Authorities.
Point No. 2(iv): From 08.10.2019, 07.45 AM there is no record or information as to the exact end time of the baggage examination /search. As per records, those baggage examination etc.. were completed well before the closure of Boarding.
Point No. 2(v): No information is available in this regard and as per record, no request has been made by Air intelligence Unit to the immigration in this regard.
Point No.2(vi): No information or copy of request etc., available. As per records available no such requisition was made to the Airliner, Point No.2(vii): An entry pertaining to offloading of Shri. Ismail Gani dated 08.10.2019 has been made in the OFFLOAD PAX REGISTER."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. FAA's order 02.01.2021, uphold the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and urged for relief to be ordered in the matter.3
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO & FAA have provided an exhaustive point-wise reply to the Appellant stating factual information while also indicating that the relevant record contains information related to third party passengers which cannot be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is not inclined to question the rational of the CPIO in denying the information related to third party passengers, however, since the Appellant has specifically sought for the information related to him alone, the scope for limited relief is pertinent in the matter.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide the available information related to the Appellant by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act, i.e redact the third-party related information and provide the extracts of the record which bear mention of the Appellant's case of interception. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Commission takes grave exception to the fact that the CPIO remained absent during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The CPIO is now directed to send a written explanation to this effect to the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4 Copy to:
Additional Commissioner of Customs Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-I Commissionerate (Airport), RTI Cell, Anna International Terminal, Chennai-600027, Tamilnadu
--(For ensuring compliance of above directions) 5