Central Information Commission
Shri R.K. Varshney vs Directorate General Of Valuation ... on 27 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01345
Dated, the 27th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Varshney
Respondents : Directorate General of Valuation (Customs)
This matter came up for hearing on 19.02.2009 in response to Commission's notice dated 22.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called. He has sent a request for adjournment of the hearing, which could not be done as the respondents have already travelled a long distance to make presentation in their case.
2. Respondents were present through the CPIO, Shri S.D. Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.
3. On hearing the submissions of the respondents and perusing the information, I find there is some contradiction in the position taken by the CPIO about the disclosure of the requested information contained in appellant's RTI-application dated 10.06.2008 and, the order of the Appellate Authority. While the Appellate Authority has declined disclosure of information citing exemption-sections of the RTI Act, CPIO's reply states that part of the data could be had from the Custom Houses. During the hearing, CPIO stated that Custom Houses compile parts of this data and provide it to the customers on payment of the price of the document containing the data. According to him, this data is already a part of a priced document.
4. It is not possible for the Commission to fine-tune as to which part of information can be disclosed and which part cannot be disclosed. There are decisions of the Commission that information relating to Bills of Lading / Entry and certain details such as the foreign supplier, the ports of supply, etc. are confidential and personal to the importer and cannot be disclosed without affecting his commercial confidence. But it would appear that there is some data which is routinely disclosed and put on sale by certain units of the public authority.
5. In my understanding, separating of the data which can and, which cannot, be disclosed is best done at the level of the Appellate Authority.
6. It is accordingly directed that matter be remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri Y.K. Agarwal, Joint Commissioner, with a direction to hold a AT-27022009-08.doc Page 1 of 2 hearing in which he may summon the appellant, the CPIO, the holder-of-the- information ⎯ the Custom Houses ⎯ and make a determination about which parts of the requested data can be disclosed to the appellant without attracting the exemption Sections of the RTI Act. If a part of the data is already brought into the public domain in the form of priced document, appellant may be appropriately directed where to purchase the data on payment of the price determined for disclosure of such data. The holders-of-the-information of other parts of disclosable data may be identified by the Appellate Authority. Action may be taken to direct such authorities to disclose the data, or to transfer that part of the query as may be related to a data as may be held by another public authority, to that public authority for processing it under the RTI Act. This will be completed within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
7. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-27022009-08.doc Page 2 of 2