CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000309
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Nirmal Solanki
Respondents : Directorate of Enforcement
This matter came up for hearing on 21.07.2009 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 22.06.2009. Appellant was absent when
called. Respondents were present through Shri R.K. Rawal, Assistant
Director and Shri S.C. Adlakha, Assistant Director.
2. In his RTI-application dated 08.10.2008 appellant had raised
certain queries relating to Foreign Exchange Rate. A copy of the
RTI-application is enclosed to this order.
3. In his reply dated 10.09.2008, CPIO informed appellant that while
the query which he had made could not be answered by the Directorate
of Enforcement ⎯ the respondents ⎯ as it did not hold the information
sought, appellant was reminded that the Directorate of Enforcement
was an exempt organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act and,
therefore, could not be obligated to disclose the information even if it
held such information.
4. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 11.12.2008, upheld CPIO’s
decision.
5. CPIO, again through a communication dated 18.11.2008, informed
appellant that the information he had sought should be obtained from
the Reserve Bank of India and the Department of Customs.
6. Now in his second-appeal, appellant has pleaded that he had
made the request for information on behalf of his client, Shri Vasudev
Moolrajani, owner of the Firm, Vikas Watch Manufacturing Industries.
According to the appellant, his client, Shri Moolrajani has been
proceeded against by the RBI and the SBI for alleged irregularities in
import of goods against remittances made from India. The Directorate
of Enforcement had issued a show cause notice on Shri Moolrajani’s
Firm, Vikas Watch Manufacturing Industries on that account.
7. According to the appellant, his client, Shri Moolrajani had
submitted all evidence about the import to the authorities concerned
AT-31072009-20.doc
Page 1 of 3
and yet the cases against his Firm had not been closed. He has alleged
that an order was made by the Assistant Director of Enforcement which
went even beyond the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of
Enforcement stating that the rate of foreign exchange mentioned by the
Department of Customs on the Bill of Entry and on the postal receipt
did not match with the remittance in foreign exchange sent through
bank. According to the appellant,
“Every one know rate of Remittances in foreign exchange sent
through Bank, is based on daily to daily rate, which can not
match with the rate of foreign exchange mentioned by customs
on Bill of Entries and Postal Receipts, because of customs
Department use average Rate of foreign exchange of the month
to calculate the Custom Duty on the goods Imported by the
Importer which is not for the purpose of sending remittance to
the Seller.
The Custom’s Bill of Entries and Postal Receipt having the
month’s average rate of foreign exchange mentioned on them by
the custom Department, are not the authentic documents to
match with the daily to daily foreign exchange Remittance sent
through Bank.”
8. It was in this background that the appellant demanded the
information requested through his RTI-application dated 08.10.2008.
9. It is the appellant’s contention that since the information he was
wanting to have, related to Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
respondents were not at-all right in advising him to approach the
Reserve Bank of India and the Customs Department if he wanted to have
the requested information.
10. It is his claim that the Directorate of Enforcement had violated
human rights of his client and the matter which he had brought up
related to life and liberty of his client, Shri Moolrajani. He, therefore,
demands that the requested information be directed to be released by
the Directorate of Enforcement.
Decision:
11. It is obvious that the Directorate of Enforcement as well as the
Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India had initiated action
against the client of this appellant in a matter of import of goods
against remittance of foreign exchange made from India. It is the
AT-31072009-20.doc
Page 2 of 3
appellant’s belief that his client was being unnecessarily harassed and
being maliciously proceeded against by multiple public authorities
including the Directorate of Enforcement. One point which appears to
be at the heart of the dispute is exchange rates at which remittances
were made and goods were to be imported by the client of this
appellant. The appellant’s purpose now is to force the Directorate of
Enforcement to indicate the exchange rate on the basis of which they
were taking action against his client in order to build up his defence.
12. It is clearly a dispute between the client of this appellant and the
public authorities, one of which is the Directorate of Enforcement. It is
seen that appellant has attempted to engage the Directorate of
Enforcement into a dialogue about the basis of their action, through
these RTI-proceedings. This is impermissible under the provisions of the
RTI Ac as it goes beyond the scope of Section 2(f).
13. Apart from the above, the Directorate of Enforcement is not the
agency which maintains exchange-rate-related details for any given
period of time. There are other public authorities engaged in these
operations. Respondents, therefore, rightly advised the appellant to
approach public authorities who held the requested information under
Section 2(j) and Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
14. The appeal, therefore, fails. Closed.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31072009-20.doc
Page 3 of 3