Copy of show cause notices issued to exporters of Soyabean meal for wrongful availment of duty drawback – CIC: ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) should be interpreted broadly and liberally – investigation not complete unless final decision is taken
13 Aug, 2013Order
1. The appellant, through his RTI application dated 10.1.2011 sought following information “copy of all show cause notices issued by DGCEI, Indore during 2009 and 2010 to various exporters of Soyabean meal (SBM) and other oil meals for alleged wrongful availment of duty drawback as per All Industry Rate of 1% in terms of customs notification No. 81/2006 dated 13.7.2006; notification No. 68/2007 dated 15.7.2007 and notification No. 103/2008 dated 29.8.2008”. The CPIO vide letter No. IV(6)/RTI/RUI/64/05/348 dated 2.2.2011 informed the appellant that the RTI Act cannot be invoked for obtaining copies of show cause notices issued by DGCEI, RU, Indore to the DOC exporters, which are part of quasi judicial proceedings.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 25.2.2011 before the FAA. The FAA, vide order No. IV(6)/RTI/RUI/64/05/593 dated 22.2.2011, while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the RTI Act cannot be invoked to access the information relating to show-cause notices and other documents relating to proceedings. It was also held by the FAA that the information sought by the appellant pertains to third parties and disclosure of such information would harm the commercial confidence of third parties.
3. In his second filed before the Commission the appellant contends that Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act has two parts, first relates to the information which would impede the process of investigation and the second part deals with apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Under the Customs Act investigation is over when show cause notice is issued to the party. Therefore clause (h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is not applicable to the present case. The respondents have not cited any reason as to why the information sought would hamper the investigation adjudication process of the case.
4. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that the investigation would not be complete by issue of show cause notices as contended by the appellant. It is apparent that the appellant wanted to impede the process of investigation with a view to further the interests of the exporters, who have availed the fraudulent drawback prior to 20.9.2010 by influencing the witnesses and by tempering with the evidences. The action of the Department is in public interest whereas the action of the appellant is in furtherance of the interests of exporters, who have availed the fraudulent drawback.
5. The Commission in the matter of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Central Excise Intelligence in case No. CIC/AT/2010/000969/SS vide its order dated 20.7.2011 held as follows: “The term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of ‘investigation’ one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be completed unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken”.
6. Consistent with the aforementioned decision of the Commission, the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act in providing copies of show cause notices issued to various exporters of Soyabean mean (SBM) and other oil meals. The instant appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Vishal Nahar v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001289