Central Information Commission
Himani vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 24 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DGOFT/A/2019/641084
In the matter of:
Himani
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)
Udyog Bhawan, H-Wing,
Gate , No.2, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/05/2019 CPIO replied on : 09/05/2019 First appeal filed on : 13/05/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 20/05/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 22/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/12/2020 Date of Decision : 23/12/2020 The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar, representative of the CPIO Respondent: Shri Raj Kamal, Dy. Director & CPIO (EG&TF), heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the name of the Firms, their addresses, IEC Code, Email ID, Phone Number, etc. of all Importers/Exporters having Import Export Codes on PAN India basis.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: 1
The representative of the appellant submitted that the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is totally irrelevant. He also submitted that there are numerous judgments wherein it has been held that the adjudicating authority/appellate authority is not allowed to travel beyond the subject by taking a new ground in the order. He has also stated that the Ministry of Commerce has been publishing Exporters as well as Importers Directory on its website and thus making exporters/importers data i.e. email id, phone number, address, IEC Code as public information. The introduction part of the said website mentions that this data is used by various Authorities and is inevitable for boosting exports and minimize imports. Further, it also mentions that Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has insisted on updating the said directory time to time to have updated information. However, as mentioned in the later part of the said introduction, this directory is not updated and complete due to various reasons.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the FAA's order dated 20.05.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was grossly improper as no personal information of any third party was sought by the appellant. Thereafter, the FAA in his order had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which seems to be proper. However, the appellant is aggrieved with the fact that this exemption was not claimed by the CPIO and the FAA cannot change his stand at an appellate stage. The Commission does not agree with the contention of the appellant as the FAA is well within his powers to review the reply of the CPIO and pass his own reasoned order.
The other fact that was brought to the notice of the Commission by the appellant is that the same information has been published on the website of the Ministry of Commerce as public information and as such the exemptions claimed by the CPIO and the FAA are totally irrelevant. The Commission while accessing the website of the Ministry of Commerce finds that the submissions of the appellant are factually correct and a list of importers/exporters has been placed on its website. During the hearing, the CPIO was therefore asked to explain as to why such misleading information was given to the appellant. He submitted that the exemption was claimed only for certain details of such importers/exporters like their bank account details, IEC Codes etc which are not available on the website of the Ministry. The Commission finds that if such was the case, the CPIO was bound to specify what information is available on the website and for what part of the information he had claimed the 2 exemption. Since no such reply was given to the appellant in the first instance, the reply is considered as improper and incomplete.
The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner and providing an improper reply to the appellant.
As far as the RTI application is concerned, since most of the information is already available on the website of the Ministry of Commerce except for the IEC Codes which comes under u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the concerned CPIO is warned to be extremely careful and vigilant in handling RTI petitions in future, failing which the Commission would initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3