RTI Application_Second Hand Machinery_value enhancementTo
The CPIO, Custom House, Tuticorin
Our Ref: 140403 Date: 10.11.2014
Please furnish following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with copy of relevant documents, ONLY in r/o second hand textile machineries cleared in July, Aug & Sept. 2014, contrary to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [‘Valuation Rules’] r/w CBEC Circular 4/2008 (customs).
1. No. of imports where:-
(a) declared value accepted and clearance granted – in r/o self assessed & ‘first check’ BE separately with total No. of BE filed.
(b) Assistant Commissioner [Proper officer] rejected the declared value in EDI system or in relevant file [with sample photo copies] before Group 5 Superintendent issued ‘examination order’ to appraise value with the help of CE.
(c) Supt. Shri S. Sundararajan nominated only Shri N.S.S. Perumalsamy Chartered Engineer along with total No. of examination order issued by him [photo copy of relevant pages of register with any title for nomination of CE maintained, if any, from July to Sept.2014 may also be provided to me]
(d) documentary proof for value of ‘new machine’ [identical/similar] were enclosed with the CE Report of the Chartered Engineer nominated by Tuticorin Customs to value the imported machines. [copy of one sample document may please be provided to me]
(e) Para 2(ii) of CBEC Circular 4/2008 (customs) to allow depreciation not done by customs [Please provide me reference no. of law in force followed].
(f) s.17(5) of Customs Act was followed where importer did not agree for enhancement
(g) AC informed the importer in writing either as a Query in EDI or by any written communication, the quantum of value enhanced in response to which importer agreed to enhancement. [Please supply photo copy of one sample]
(h) examination order directing not to assess less than value on weight basis contrary to Proviso (2)(vi) Rule 9 of Valuation Rules.
(i) (i) cases registered as per Rule 3 (2) of Valuation Rules [please note the word ‘shall’ used therein]
(ii) case not registered with reference no. of law in force which gives discretion to proper officer [AC], not to register case when declared value rejected and assessed at enhanced value.
2. The reference no. of law in force which authorises assessment of BE where value declared was rejected
(a) u/r 9 instead of either u/r 4 or 5 of the Valuation Rules where value of recent imports of identical or similar machines were mentioned in report CE nominated by customs.
(b) by taking the value appraised by CE [not an ‘officer of customs’] who did not follow any one rule of the ‘Valuation Rules’.
3. Reference no. of law in force, for not adhering to the CBEC Circular 4/2008 (customs)
(i) in declining to accept proper load port CE certificate submitted by the importer
(ii) in not permitting importer to get local CE’s Certificate where importer could not produce Load Port Certificate
(iii) in issuing examination order nominating local CE to appraise value with his help.
Your RTI Request filed successfully.
Date of Filing 10-11-2014
Request filed with Central Board of Excise and Customs - Customs
RTI APAR not initiated / reviewed as per DOPT OM 21011/02/2009 - Estt. A dated 16.02.2009
Information requested for under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 may be provided to me.
DPCs are not conducted in time so that vacancies
remain unfilled which is one of the main contributing factors for the deteriorating
quality of work turned out resulting in huge loss of revenue. It also affects the morale of serving
officials who indefinitely wait for promotion and at times meet their
retirement day with colossal disappointment.
It is gathered that the non-conducting of DPC for promotion to AC
is attributed to non-receipt of APAR [ACR] of many feeder cadre officers. There
is no reason why this should happen even after the issue of DOPT
O.M. No. 21011/02/2009 - Estt. A dated 16.02.2009 on the subject of timely
preparation and proper maintenance of ACRs. [copy attached]
The O.M. which is effective from 2008-09, prescribes
due dates of 30th June for initiation of the APAR and 31st August for review
Officer. The O.M. also specifies that
the defaulting officer would forfeit his right to initiate / review the APAR.
In case both the Reporting officer and Reviewing officer had forfeited their
right to initiate / review the APAR, the CR format with the self appraisal
given by the officer to be reported upon will be placed in his ACR dossier.
The executive field officers in Customs who
work on shifts under the charge of different supervisory officers choose any
willing officer to initiate their APARs irrespective of whether they worked
under their charge for the minimum required period or not. If they fail in
their attempt they keep quiet and their APARs are not got initiated for that
year. In some cases the APARs sent to
the reviewing officer does not see the light of the day. No record is maintained by the reviewing
officers for receipt of the initiated APARs so that they can infinitely wait
for the concerned officer to approach them for obvious reasons. APARs for the years 2008-2009 onwards need to
be dealt with as per Para 2 & 3 of cited
OM and DPC is held early.
Hence, in public interest and in the interest
of the serving officers, following information may please be furnished in
respect of the feeder cadres for promotion to AC:-
of Customs Commissionerates where Part I of APAR is being filled up by the
Establishment section and sent for initiating the APAR only to the supervisory
officer under whom the officer to be reported has actually worked for the
required minimum number of days in the reporting period?
no, contrary instruction, if any or action initiated and provide a copy of such
2(a). No. of APARs pending initiation / review
in each Customs Commissionerate for the reporting years 2008-2009 to 2013-14 yearwise,
cadrewise and reporting / reviewing officerwise (Name).
3 (a). Names of Commissionerates where the
contents of Para 2&3 of cited O.M. are implemented from 2008-2009 to 2013-14
and the no. of forfeitures ordered yearwise.
3(b). If not implemented, action initiated.
Your RTI Request filed
CBECC/R/2014/60372 Name Jacob, P
Date of Filing 20-10-2014 Request filed with Central Board
of Excise and Customs - Customs
First Appeal: made on 22.12.2014
Telephone Number 011-23095532 Email Id email@example.com
First Appeal u/s 19(1) of the
Right To Information Act 2005
K. Singh, Addl. Director, O/o ADG (HRM) DGHRD,
408/8, Deepshikha Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008
Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005
Appeal Date: 22-10-2014
details: Jacob, P. 31 A, Sri Shanmuga Nagar ,
Mannivakkam, Chennai – 600048.
Address: Right Information International Forum, New No.33, Stringer
Street, Siva Complex, II Floor, Broadway, Chennai – 600108.] Email id: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone/Fax:
044 22750080 Mobile Phone: 9444953456
Kumar, Dy. Director, O/o DGHRD, Room No. 409/8, Deepshikha Building, Rajendra
Place, New Delhi - 110008
Response F. No. 8/B/03/HRD (HRM) /2014/Pt. I/5260 dated 20.11.2014
by the not furnishing of information by the
CPIO, non following the provisions of
Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 thereby
of RTI application
Online - CBECC/R/2014/60372
of CPIO/SPIO Orders
8/B/03/HRD (HRM) /2014/Pt. I/5260
order of events
Application Sent on
CBEC transferred Appln.
Response received on
Appeal filed on
facts leading to appeal :
has not furnished information asked for and did not forward to the
appropriate authority as required vide s.6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for this Appeal:
Grounds of Appeal: Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates that where an application is made
to a public authority requesting for an information,— (i) which is held by
another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely
connected with the functions of another public authority, the public
authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application
or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and
inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the
transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon
as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt
of the application. This has not been done.
Additional Information in support of Appeal:
The online RTI application addressed
to the CBEC. It cannot be believed
that the CPIO CBEC is ignorant of the fact intimated to me in para 2 of the
response provided to me vide F. No. 8/B/03/HRD (HRM) /2014/Pt.
I/5260 dated 20.11.2014 “the requisite information does not
pertain to the APAR section of this Directorate [HRD]. The ACRs/APARs are
initiated, reported & reviewed in the Excise / Customs Commissionerate,
therefore the information may be sought from them.” It cannot also be believed that the HRM
Directorate officials are equally ignorant of the basic official functioning
to return back the communication to the sender – CBEC, stating the very same
facts quoted above. Moreover, it
cannot at all be believed that the second addressee of the CBEC F.No.
402/39/2013-Cus-III dated 22nd October, 2014 viz. the CPIO, O/o
the JS (Admn.), DoR, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi could keep quiet without
sending the information to me within the stipulated period, even till
date. The file notings would throw light on these lapses which
appears to have a common agenda not to provide the information by vexing the
applicant. This may be taken note of
and dealt with when the Appellate Authority disposes of this appeal.
Prayer/relief sought for:
CPIO may be directed to take appropriate action so that I am provided with
the information asked for following the mandates of the Right to Information
2. The Additional Information in support of
Appeal provided in Column 10 above may please be inquired into as per Section
18 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 and discussed while disposing of this appeal with
3. Now that the information will be
provided after the mandated 30 days time period, the information may be furnished “free of
charge” as per sec 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Presence for Hearing:
Hearing may be given during which I may be permitted to peruse the file
notings of CPIO.
Cus.III, CBEC transferred my online application to the CPIO, O/o the DG
(HRD). C-4, (West Wing), Ground Floor, Ircon Building, Dist. Centre, Saket,
New Delhi – 110017 and the CPIO, O/o the JS (Admn.) DoR, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
Date : 22.12.2014
( Appellant )
Annexure – A: Copy of RTI Application
Annexure – B: Copy of CBEC letter dt 22.10.14
Annexure – C: Copy of CPIO Response
Copy to: CPIO,
O/o the JS (Admn.) DoR, CBEC, North
Block, New Delhi.
Attendance in Central Secretariat / Departments / Offices
Draft RTI Application July, 2013
RIIF is an organization functioning
Where system failures affecting
efficient functioning in governance are noticed,
we reinvent standards already in vogue
in the past or
trigger action to evolve new standards
fitting to the present.
Kind attention is invited to Paragraph 1 to 5 of Chapter IV
– Office Management of the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure
(CS-MOP) wherein it is inter alia prescribed that every member of the staff are
to mark the attendance register both at the time of arrival and while leaving. In this regard, the following information may
please be furnished to us.
1. (a) Please let us know whether staffs other
than ministerial staff [for example Appraising Officers posted to non-current
seats] are exempted from marking attendance?
(b) If exempted, a copy of the
relevant order may please be provided to us.
(c) If not exempted, whether
attendance register is being maintained and marked promptly by all staff
members everyday as per the procedure prescribed?
(d) If no attendance register is
maintained, on the basis of what record an individual is treated to have
attended office and paid salary for that day? Please provide authority
(e) What is the system put in
place to find out staff who did not turn up for work or arrive later than the
grace time but paid salary for the day? [Para 1 of Chapter IV – Office Management].
2. (a) Whether Group A
officers are exempted from marking attendance?
(b) If exempted, a copy of the
relevant order may please be provided to us.
(c) If not exempted, on the basis
of what record an officer is treated to have attended office on a particular
day and paid salary for that day?
(d) What is the system put in
place to find out officers who did not turn up for work or arrive later than
the grace time but paid salary for the day?
3. (a) Under what authority is any staff or
officer permitted to engage an outsider to work proxy and get the work assigned
to a staff / officer done with or without attending office herself/himself? [Paragraph
15 of Chapter IV – Office Management of the Central Secretariat Manual of
Office Procedure (CS-MOP)]
(b) If not permitted, under whose
orders [oral or written] such proxy are performing the work assigned to a staff
4. (a) Whether Group A, B, C and D staff/officers
are covered Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure (CS-MOP)?
(b) If not any other ‘Office Procedure’
5. (a) Whether the time of logging on to the
System is taken as marking of attendance for those who do customs clearance
work under the EDI?
(b) If not as to how their attendance is
being regulated since officials who arrive inordinately late rush up the bills
without literally checking anything thereby not doing justice to their calling?
[System records would reveal that in a minute’s time all the keys are pressed
in succession and the bills are moved from an officer’s queue.]
6. (a) Is there any proposal pending to provide
Biometric Fingerprint Attendance Marking Systems?
(b) If so, what is the present
stage at which the matter stands?
(c) If no such proposal in the
pipeline, whether it would be implemented in the near future?
Proper Officer under the Customs Act, 1962
RTI Application sent on 13.02.2013
Track Result for:ET096409995IN
Srinivasanagar S.O (Kanchipuram)
at New Delhi G.P.O.
Reference No. 130401 Dated 13.02.2013
Public Information Officer,
Board of Excise and Customs,
APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
The Central Board of Excise and Customs,
New Delhi vide Notification No. 40/2012 Customs [NT] dated 2.5.2012, has inter
alia assigned the functions in relation to Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (6)
of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Superintendent of Customs &
Central Excise/Appraiser and officers above their rank, as the ‘PROPER
OFFICERS’. In this regard, please furnish the following information, with
1. The phrase ‘PROPER OFFICER’ alone is found
in the Customs Act, 1962 and nowhere the phrase ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ is used.
As such, whether the said notification prescribes more than one officer as ‘PROPER
OFFICERS’ for a specified function?
If so, are both the initiator of the function who renders only assistance and
the next higher rank officer who ultimately considers all relevant facts and
laws and takes a decision are ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ for a singular function?
2. At present the Appraiser initiates the
verification process of re-assessment [as provided for u/s.17 (2)] in the
Customs EDI system in respect of the Bill of Entry. When the Appraiser
initiates a draft query in the Customs EDI System, to require the importer to produce certain
documents, [as provided for u/s.17 (3)] and forward the Bill of Entry to the
AC/DC who alone considers and approves the query and sends to the Importer.
(a) In this context, who is the ‘PROPER
OFFICER’ for this function? – Is it the Appraiser who initiated the
verification & query process or the AC/DC who considered and approved the
3. Who is the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ for
examination of imported goods u/s 17 (2) and for making an order permitting
clearance of the goods for home consumption u/s 47(1) [i.e. Out of Charge
4. Before issue of notification No. 40/2012
Customs [NT] dated 2.5.2012, who was the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ with regard to the
function where the Appraiser initiated the verification process of
re-assessment [as provided for u/s.17 (2)] in the Customs EDI system in respect
of the Bill of Entry? When the Appraiser initiated a draft query to require the importer to produce certain
documents, [as provided for u/s.17 (3)] in the Customs EDI System and forwarded
the Bill of Entry to the AC/DC who alone considered and approved the query and
sent to the Service Centre.
In this context, who was the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ for this function? – Was it the
Appraiser who initiated the verification and query process or the AC/DC who
considered and approved the query?
5. Who was the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ assigned
with the function of examination of imported goods u/s 17 (2) and for making an
order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption u/s 47(1) [i.e.Out
of Charge order] before issue of notification No. 40/2012 Customs [NT] dated
6. Is a superior officer who ultimately
signs in discharge of a function [mentioned in Notification No. 40/2012 Customs
[NT] dated 2.5.2012] which is initiated and put up by an officer/officers lower
in rank to the ultimate signatory, the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ for that function?
7. As per Notification No. 40/2012 Customs
[NT] dated 2.5.2012 Appraiser and above is assigned with the function of
re-assessment u/s 17 (4). In the Customs
EDI, the Appraiser initiates the re-assessment process as an assistant to the
AC/DC who is the final authority to consider and take a decision. In this situation,
are both the Appraiser and AC/DC ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ and responsible for the
re-assessment done or
(b) the AC/DC alone is the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ and
responsible for the re-assessment?
8. Whether there can be multiple ‘PROPER
OFFICERS’ for a specified singular function where the officer senior in rank is
assisted by one or more officers of lower rank?
For example u/s 110 an AC/DC leads the search party consisting Appraisers
and Examiners who assist the AC/DC in the search and eventually the AC/DC takes
a decision to seize the goods and seizes the same u/s 110 (1) as the ‘PROPER
OFFICER’. In this situation,
whether the AC/DC alone is the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ or
the Examiners, Appraisers and the AC/DC together ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ u/s 110 (1)
read with Notification Notification No. 40/2012 Customs [NT] dated 2.5.2012?
9. Is the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ for any specified
function under Notification No. 40/2012 Customs [NT] dated 2.5.2012 read with
Section 2 (34) of the Customs Act, 1962 responsible for all his actions with
regard to that function?
10. On the backdrop of phrases ‘AND ABOVE’
& ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ used in Notification No. 40/2012 Customs [NT] dated
(a) who is ‘PROPER OFFICER’ when a superior
officer exercises powers of a ‘PROPER OFFICER’ u/s 5(2) of Customs Act, 1962?
have enclosed Indian Postal Order No. 03F 532166 dt. 8.2.12 for Rs.10/-, as
initial requisition fee u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Thanking you in anticipation for
providing the information sought for at your earliest convenience.