CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00336
Dated, the 3rd November, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Tarun Gulati
C/o M/s. Arrow Coated Products Limited
Respondents : Customs Department
This matter came up for hearing on 22.10.2008. Appellant was present
along with his Counsels, Shri Jaiveer Shergill and Shri K. Prabhakar, while the
respondents were represented by Smt.J.M. Shanti Sundharam, Commissioner of
Customs.
2. This appeal is the sequel to the RTI-application dated 10.08.2007 filed by
the appellant before CPIO & Commissioner Customs, New Delhi. The RTI
query of the appellant read as follows:-
“The Customs authorities of Delhi Air Cargo had conducted
investigations in connection with the import of VUTEK 3360 Four Color
Printing System Serial No.36480 vide Bill of Entry No.184495 dt.
21.11.2005 supplied by M/s. VUTEK INC, USA, suspecting under
valuation of the goods.
Subsequently, as we understand, the department also carried out inquiries
with M/s.Vutek, USA, the suppliers of the said machines through India
Embassy & US Customs authorities.
In terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 it is hereby requested to supply the
report or reply in connection with the aforesaid overseas inquiries.”
3. CPIO, through his reply dated 17.09.2007, declined to disclose
information under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority, through
his order dated 07.02.2008, upheld the findings of the CPIO.
4. Appellant has disputed the respondents’ claim that the requested
information attracted exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. He has argued
that there is nothing on record to support the claim that the life or physical safety
of any person would be endangered or any source of information would be
exposed if the requested information were to be disclosed. According to him,
what appellant had sought was not the source of information but the details of the
enquiry conducted with the foreign supplier by the department / public authority.
Page 1 of 3
Appellant has argued that respondents’ action was contrary to the spirit of the
RTI Act.
5. This matter was earlier heard on 16.07.2008 when the CPIO had taken the
plea that since the information requested by the appellant was related to the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) it attracted the exemption under
Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of RTI Act.
6. During the hearing, Commission had also allowed the appellants to amend
their appeal-petition to make it a petition from an individual citizen, rather than
from the Firm / company.
7. Respondents were asked to consult DRI regarding disclosure of the
information requested by the appellant. Respondents have reported that the DRI
has now informed them, through their letter dated 08.08.2008, that they (DRI)
have been given special standing / exemption from the purview of the RTI Act
under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act read with Second Schedule and as such no
information pertaining to DRI need be disclosed.
8. Appellants have countered this argument with the plea that the matter
referred to by them was decided by a quasi-judicial authority, viz. the
Commissioner of Customs and any exemption under the RTI Act would not
apply to a quasi-judicial authority.
9. This reasoning of the appellant is unconvincing insofar as it is now
acknowledged that the investigation was carried out by DRI in the matter
referred to by the appellant in his RTI-application. As such, the information
originated in the DRI. Mere fact that the said information was in adjudication
before a quasi-judicial authority, viz. the Commissioner of Customs, does not
alter the character of the information, i.e. an information which was held by DRI.
Once an information is related to DRI, regardless of its location, it will be
covered by the exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act read with Second
Schedule.
10. Respondents have also rightly cited the two cases, viz. S.P. Goyal; Appeal
No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00438; Date of Decision: 17.09.2007 and Rajeev Verma;
Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00555, in which it was held that an information,
which related to an exempted organization like DRI, though held by other public
authorities on their files, need not be disclosed under Section 24 of the RTI Act
read with Second Schedule.
11. As it is, in view of the fact that the requested information relates to an
exempted organization, viz. the DRI, it is not considered necessary to go into
other aspects / arguments in this appeal. The exemption enjoyed by DRI is
Page 2 of 3
absolute and irreversible unless there is reason to believe that there were
allegations of corruption and human rights violation involved, which is not the
matter in this case.
12. In view of the above, it is held that the requested information cannot be
disclosed under Section 24 read with Second Schedule.
13. Appeal rejected.
14. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 3 of 3