के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DRINT/A/2024/603748 Nazir M P .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 27, G N Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600017 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date of Decision : 02.05.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 27.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 09.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.10.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 14.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.01.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 27.09.2023 seeking the following information:

“1. To identify the information sought for, I may state that a show cause notice under sections 28 & 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was signed and issued by Sri Peri Umasankar, Additional Director General, DRI Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai 600017 to M/s Afra Traders, Kannur, 670012 Kerala, answerable to the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin vide C No. DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/17/Int-1/2016 dated 28-062017 (hereafter, the Notice). During process of adjudication it was revealed that the Notice was issued on the basis of relevant case records including draft show cause notice submitted by the Deputy Director, DRI Tuticorin.

2. Myself being the authorized consultant of the noticee in the above case, I need certain facts to be placed before higher judicial fora. I submit that I do not have those facts/information, whereas the said information is with the public authority. In the circumstances, I may be supplied with the following simple and upfront information:

(i) When was the above-referred case records, submitted by the Deputy Director, DRI Regional Unit, Tuticorin, received by the office of the said Additional Director General DRI for issue of the Notice (Le., date of receipt)?

(ii) Did the addressee (Le., the Additional Director General, DRI, Chennai or his office) receive the case records in ORIGINAL or photocopies thereof in respect of the case in question, on the basis of which the Notice was issued?

(iii) After due process of the above case records as received from Deputy Director, DRI Regional Unit, Tuticorin and thereupon signing and issuing the Notice, was the entire case records (in original or as the case may be photocopies), sent DIRECTLY to the adjudicating authority for adjudication?

(iv) If not, to whom or to which office the entire case records was forwarded eventually to be or cause to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority?

(v) Date of dispatch of the case records in question to the adjudicating authority for adjudication, as queried in (iii) or as the case may be, to other office or officer as queried in (iv) above?

(vi) Date of receipt of the case records in question by the officer concerned, vide (v).”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:

“1. In this regard, it is informed that Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifies that "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government".

2. This Directorate being one of the organizations listed under SL.No.3 of the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 falls outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly your RTI Application dated 27-09-2023 under RTI Act, 2005 cannot be considered by this office. Hence, The Indian Postal Order for Rs.10/-bearing No.59F 361259 is returned.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2023, held as under.

“1. In the instant case, the information sought on inter-departmen