Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi ... on 6 January, 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/CCCDZ/A/2021/652274
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asst Commissioner ACC import,
Office of Principal Commissioner of Customs
ACC-Import, RTI Cell, New Customs House,
Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2023
Date of Decision : 05/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 26/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/11/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Please provide a copy of TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021.1
2. Please inform the name of depositor/agent who has deposited the required amount quoted in aforesaid TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 on behalf of consignee importer to which airway Bill(ANB)NO. to this Challan pertains to.
3. Please perform the amount of aforesaid TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 deposited by depositor/ agent on behalf of consignee importer.
4. Please inform the name of importer consignee/ consignor in whose name or on whose behalf, the aforesaid tR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 stands deposited or issued, if not in existence aforesaid challan, then inform that no such TR-6 Challan stands in existence.
5. Please inform the exchange rate of dollar on 30.05.2021 used by Customs authorities for computation of IGST for imported items.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.07.2021 stating as under:-
In this regard, a mail dated 05.07.2021 was sent to the applicant on [email protected] which are mentioned in his RTI application seeking the third party consent. However, no such reply has been received till by the applicant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Superintendent/ ACC present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant raised his arguments in the instant Appeal on the following lines -2
"....1. The Appellant/ Complainant vide RTI Application (Annexure 1) had sought the certain specific information in regard to copy of TR 6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 through which IGST on Imported lifesaving equipment (oxygen Concentrator) claimed by consignee from consignor by staling to have been paid by consignee agent--redEx India on behalf of consigner Rakesh Kumar Agarwal (Appellant herein) to customs office at New Delhi, but copy of TR Challan not being provided by consignee, being concealed It which transpires that the quoted TR Challan number is fake and thereby consignor is appeared to have been cheated by consignee agent in collusion with customs officials.
xxx
5. That the sought information do not pertain to third party, the sought information pertain to the Appellant because the FedEx India has informed that the IGST amounting Rs. 10292/-has been paid on behalf of and in the name of consigner Rakesh Kumar Agarwal (Appellant herein) vide TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 against the import of oxygen concentrator and the payment of Rs. 10292/- has been charged from the undersigned being consignee by quoting aforesaid TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021, then how sought information can be third party.
6. That the copy of aforesaid TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 has been concealed by FedEx, not being provided by them which discloses that either the redEx India has not deposited the said IGST to Customs but the payment has been charged from the undersigned consignee/appellant by quoting aforesaid fake TR-6 Challan Number 1231113005202114380 dated 30.05.2021 or the said challan pertain to some other third party which is a clear cut case of cheating and criminal breach of trust and the possibility of collusion of some customs staff with fedEx India cannot be ruled out.
7. That by not providing the correct and complete sought information by CP10 on each 5 points as sought in RTI application, the CPIO is encouraging and has facilitated such cheating and then of IGST...."
In rebuttal, the CPIO submitted that the Appellant has nowhere submitted any documents in support of his claim that he was the consignor of the goods. He further submitted that through the instant RTI Application, the Appellant has tried to settle his business dispute regarding payment of TR 6 challan for import of 3 oxygen Concentrator which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. He added that the Appellant has also not provided any details including the import of averred goods, Bill of Entry, etc. to enable the CPIO to facilitate him requisite information. However, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide the relevant information to the Appellant upon receipt of relevant documents in support of his claim.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to payment of challan against alleged fake TR 6 challan for import of oxygen concentrator equipment through which IGST on this equipment was paid by consignee agent i.e. FedEx India on behalf of the consigner( appellant himself) to the Customs office and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and 4 opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, by taking empathetic view in the matter and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Appellant is advised to submit the requisite documents more particularly the bill of Entry and his claim to be the consignor himself. The CPIO upon receipt of these documents is directed to provide relevant information in response to instant RTI Application, free of cost to the Appellant which would also resolve the facts whether the Appellant is a third party or not.
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of relevant documents from the Appellant and a compliance report to this effect be filed by the CPIO with the Commission thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6