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 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amresh Chandra Mathur vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai ... on 7 February, 2024

                            केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



File No: CIC/CUSCZ/C/2022/652476

Amresh Chandra Mathur                               ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant


                                      VERSUS
                                      बनाम

PIO,
Assistant Commissioner of
Customs CPIO-RTI-Chennai IV
Customs House 60 Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600001                                       ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :    01-02-2024
Date of Decision                  :    06-02-2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on          :    08-09-2019
CPIO replied on                   :    18-09-2019 and 09-12-2019
First appeal filed on             :    09-10-2019
First Appellate Authority's       :    11-11-2019
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :    28-09-2022


Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2019 seeking the following information:
1
"In respect of drug Vigamox (Generic Name Moxifloxacin Hydrochloride eye drops 0.5%) imported by M/s Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore through Chennai Seaport during the year in year 2011 kindly provide following information:
1. Clear certified copy of documents a. provided by Drug controller of India officials (CDSCO port officials) b. endorsed by Drug controller of India officials (CDSCO port officials) that authorised custom officials of Chennai seaport to clear the consignment to be taken out of the seaport by the importer.
2. If any of the above requested information has been destroyed by Chennai seaport customs office then please provide details of information destroyed and copy of the procedure / office order based on which information has been destroyed.
3. If any of the requested information is not being provided kindly provide appropriate reason for not providing the requested information."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18.09.2019 stating as under:

"The information sought is third party information which cannot be provided in terms of rule 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.10.2019. The FAA vide its order dated 11.11.2019, has directed the CPIO, Commissionerate Import, custom House to furnish the requested information to the RTI applicant or redirect the RTI application to the concerned section within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 09.12.2019 replied as under:

"Please refer to Order in Appeal No. 17/2019 dated 11.11.2019 issued by First Appellate Authority, Chennai-Import Commissionerate wherein it was directed to furnish the requested information to the RTI Applicant or redirect the RTI Application to the concerned section.
2
Accordingly, your RTI Application was forwarded to this Commissionerate to furnish the required documents pertaining to the Bill of Entry no. 767609 dated 02.02.2011. A copy of your application was forwarded to the concerned section seeking the requisite information. The information received in respect of your RTI Application is reproduced below (copy enclosed):
It is verified that Bill of Entry No. 767609 dated 02.02.2011 was cleared at M/s. ECCT CFS. It is clarified by the Custodian that the docket pertaining to the said Bill of Entry was destroyed by floods in Chennai during 2015."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: N Mohan, Deputy Commissioner of Customs cum CPIO appeared through NIC.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the complainant as per the records available with them vide their letter dated 09.12.2019.
They filed submitted detailed written submissions and contents of which are reproduced as under:
"Initially the application was rejected by CPIO (Imports) vide letter dated 18.09.2019 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved with the information provided by the CPIO, the applicant filed an appeal before Appellate Authority-Imports.

The Appellate Authority-Imports allowed the appeal and directed the CPIO to furnish the requested information to the RTI applicant or re-direct the RTI application to the concerned section.

The CPIO-Imports transferred the application to CPIO-Exports under section 6 (3). The CPIO-Exports vide letter dated 09.12.2019 stated that as clarified by the Custodian ECCTCFS, the docket pertaining to the said Bill of Entry was destroyed by floods in Chennai during 2015.

3

Further it is also informed that Shri Amresh Chandra Mathur has filed new RTI application bearing registration no. CUSCZ/R/E/20/00071 in the same matter after the reply was furnished by CPIO-Exports vide letter dated 09.12.2019 stating that as clarified by the Custodian ECCT-CFS, the docket pertaining to the said Bill of Entry was destroyed by floods in Chennai during 2015. In the said application he has requested to provide following information under RTI Act.

"1. CPIO certified copy in respect of docket pertaining to the bill of entry 767609 dated 02.02.2011 that was destroyed by floods in Chennai during 2015.
b. Copy of complaint lodged that formed the basis of registration of FIR.
c. List of documents that were kept in the docket as per official procedure of customs applicable at the time of customs clearance of the imported drug.
d. List of the dockets that were lost due to Chennai floods as given by custodian of the docket that was given to appropriate authority to whom loss of dockets.
2. Copy of the portion of Contract, with M/S ECCT CFS, that lays down responsibility of M/S ECCT CFS in case of loss of dockets.
3. Copy of records available with Customs as spelled out in Para 2 of the reply."

The CPIO based on the letter dated 18.07.2020 received from ECCT CFS (copy enclosed) has replied vide letter dated 31.07.2020 stated that some dockets including the reference bill of entry docket were swept out from M/s ECCT stores and destroyed during 2015 floods. Further, it was clarified by the custodian that they have not registered FIR in this regard as this was a Force Majeure. The reply was further upheld by Appellate Authority.

Aggrieved by the information provided the applicant filed a appeal before CIC along with a complaint under section 18(1) of RTI Act, 2005. The Information Commissioner vide order dated 31.08.2021 (copy enclosed) has ordered the following:

"11. With regards to second appeal no. CIC/CUSCZ/A/2020/682886, the Commission finds that the respondent vide letter dated 31.07.2020, have categorically replied to the appellant/ complainant that the documents were destroyed during the floods of 2015 and no FIR in this regard had been registered by them. Further with regards to query no. 1(c), (d), 2 & 3 of the RTI application, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish any documents available on record in material form such as assessment report or the report submitted by the concerned of ice establishing that documents are destroyed. etc., without giving opinions or 4 explanations related to the assessment where the information does not exist in material form as per Sec. 2 (f) of the Act, to the appellant/ complainant strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to this Commission.
12. With regards to the complaint no. CIC CUSCZ/C/2020/682847, the Commission finds that a categorical reply has already been furnished to the appellant/ complainant and no information has been denied and thus the reply given by the respondent is neither misleading nor unsatisfactory. Therefore, there are no sufficient ground to take action against the respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, no case of penalty has been made out and accordingly the complaint is being dropped. However, a warning is being issued to the respondent to remain more meticulous while dealing with the RTI application and implementing the provisions of the RTI Act."

Accordingly, the following reply was furnished to the applicant:

"1. Please refer to Order dated 31.08.2021 passed by Information Commissioner, New Delhi under Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. With regards to the complainant No. CIC/CUSCZ/C/2020/682847, the Commission finds that a categorical reply has already been furnished to the appellant/Complainant and no information has been denied and thus the reply given by this of ice is neither misleading nor unsatisfactory.
3. With regards to the second appeal no. CIC/CUSCZ/A/2020/682886, the Commission finds that the respondent vide letter dated 31.07.2021, have categorically replied to the appellant/ complainant that the documents were destroyed during the floods of 2015 and no FIR in this regard had been registered by the Custodian ECCT CFS.
4. Further the Commission directed this office to furnish any documents available on record, in this regard this office has requested to the concerned sections for their reply, the concerned sections reiterated that the available information already submitted categorically, and no new records/documents are available with them."

Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that reply has been given by the respondent vide letters dated 18.09.2019 and 09.12.2019. The respondent submitted that information has been given as per the records available with them. The complainant neither filed any written objections nor 5 presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. There is no mala fide established on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. Therefore, in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Date 06-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 011- 26181827 Date 6