RTI Applications [sent / to be sent] 

Reg. CESTAT order on value of old and used tyres

Our Ref. 150403 dt 25.05.2015

Submitted to the Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur.

Please refer to CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi Final Order No. C/A/54162/2014-CU(DB) dt 22.10.2014 in Appeal No. C/392/2009-CU(DB) which appears to have been decided in favour of the importer on wrong understanding of the provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rule’]  and on wrong premisses.

There is no reason to believe that the concerned customs officers are naive and ignorant  that  old and used tyres, not produced by the same person cannot be "identical goods" as per Rule 2 (d) and not even  "similar goods" as per Rule 2 (f).  And that two imports of ‘old and used tyres’ not being identical or similar goods, the question of  ‘comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction’ does not arise as could be could be derived from the  Explanation (1) (iii) (a) provided under Rule 12.

Name of manufacturer, usage years and condition of each ‘old and used tyre’ are seldom mentioned in any sale document including the packing list.  There is no reason to believe that such details have been submitted by the importer to Customs except declaring as ‘old and used tyres’. Hence it appears that CESTAT has erred in accepting such claim.  

Views of CESTAT that "Importer having declared transaction value by producing invoice, it is for Revenue to rebut it by production of evidence" appears to be ill-founded.  There is no such requirement under Rule 12 (2) which reads "At the request of an importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported".

In the circumstances, please provide me the following information by way of supplying attested true copy of: -

1)   ‘Declaration disclosing full and accurate details’, required under Rule 11 (1) (a) relating to the value of imported goods, if any, furnished by the importer.

2)   Bill of Entry, Invoice, Detailed Packing List, Bill of Lading and any other relevant documents submitted to Customs.

3)   Communication, if any, of the proper officer to the importer to furnish further information including documents or other evidence  under Rule 12.

4)   Letter requesting the proper officer the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared, if received from importer.

5)   Communication of grounds intimated to the importer by the proper officer, if any sent.

6)   Record of personal hearing including Written submissions, if any, made by the importer.

7)   Final decision taken by the proper officer  under Rule  12 (1)

8)   O-i-O passed in this case.

9)   Order of the Commissioner Appeals in this case.

10)                 NIDB data on contemporaneous imports made use of in this case.

Your RTI Request filed successfully. Please note down the following details for further references.

Registration Number

CBECC/R/2015/60211

Name

Jacob, P

Date of Filing

25-05-2015

RTI Fee Received

 https://rtionline.gov.in/images/rsSymbol.png  10

Payment Mode

Credit or Debit Card / RuPay Card<img src="../images/new_rotate.gif" alt="new"/>

SBI Reference number

115052578547810

Transaction Status

Transaction Successful

Request filed with

Central Board of Excise and Customs - Customs

Telephone Number

011-23095532

Email Id

uscusiii@nic.in

 

 

++

Reg.Filing of Manual BE for ex-bond clearance

Our Ref.150401 RTI dt 22.05.2015

Submitted to Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Sea Import.

Section 46 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing shall be presented electronically  to the proper officer.  The proviso thereto provides that the Commissioner of Customs may, in cases where it is not feasible to make entry by presenting electronically, allow an entry to be presented in any other manner.

However, in contravention of the above, the Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the bonded warehouses are situated, permit Bills of Entry [Ex-bond] for home consumption to be filed manually even though the Commissioner of Customs has not allowed filing of manual BE.  The status of connected Bills of Entry for warehousing [Into-Bond], filed at the port of import  remains ‘Active’ in the EDI system [pending to be ‘Archived’].

Please provide the following information with regard to the consignments landed at the  Chennai Sea Port; cleared for warehousing outside the jurisdiction of  the Chennai Sea Customs: -

1)   The earliest ‘Bill of Entry for warehousing’ [Into-Bond BE] No. and Date’, the status of which is ‘Active’ in the EDI system.

2)   Out of the ‘Bill of Entry for warehousing’ filed upto 31st March, 2015, the status of which is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, (a) in respect of how many ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’  the Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the customs bonded warehouses are located, have granted clearance under manual ex-bond BE for home consumption, without obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Customs, Import, Chennai Sea? (b) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing, the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption?  (c) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing,  the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption which are not physically available in the respective customs bonded warehouse either because illegally removed or substituted with some other goods?

3)   Out of the ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’ filed up to 31st March, 2015, whose status is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, in respect of how many ‘BEs for warehousing’, re-warehousing certificates have been received and entered in the system?

4)   Out of the ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’ filed up to 31st March, 2015, whose status is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, (a) in respect of how many ‘BEs for warehousing’, re-warehousing certificates have not been received? (b) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing, action has been initiated to enforce the bond for non submission of re-warehousing certificates in time?

5)   Whether duty collected on ex-bond clearance is accounted for as revenue of the Chennai Sea Customs – Import?

6)   Please provide the reference No. and date of all orders for the time being in force –  circulars and instructions issued by the CBEC and Public Notice, if any, issued by Chennai Customs.

7)    Your RTI Request filed successfully.

8)      Please note down the following details for further references.

9)    

10)Top of Form

Registration Number

CBECC/R/2015/60205

Name

Jacob, P.

Date of Filing

22-05-2015

RTI Fee Received

 https://rtionline.gov.in/images/rsSymbol.png  10

Payment Mode

Credit or Debit Card / RuPay Card<img src="../images/new_rotate.gif" alt="new"/>

SBI Reference number

115052277154510

Transaction Status

Transaction Successful

Request filed with

Central Board of Excise and Customs - Customs

  Contact Details  

Telephone Number

011-23095532

Email Id

uscusiii@nic.in

 ++

Our Ref.150402 RTI dt 22.05.2015

Submitted to Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin.

Section 46 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing shall be presented electronically  to the proper officer.  The proviso thereto provides that the Commissioner of Customs may, in cases where it is not feasible to make entry by presenting electronically, allow an entry to be presented in any other manner.

However, in contravention of the above, the Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the bonded warehouses are situated, permit Bills of Entry [Ex-bond] for home consumption to be filed manually even though the Commissioner of Customs has not allowed filing of manual BE.  The status of connected Bills of Entry for warehousing, filed at the port of import  remains ‘Active’ in the EDI system.

Please provide the following information with regard to the consignments landed at the Tuticorin Port; cleared for warehousing outside the jurisdiction of  the Tuticorin Customs: -

1)   The earliest ‘Bill of Entry for warehousing’ [Into-Bond BE] No. and Date’, the status of which is ‘Active’ in the EDI system.

2)   Out of the ‘Bill of Entry for warehousing’ filed upto 31st March, 2015, the status of which is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, (a) in respect of how many ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’  the Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the customs bonded warehouses are located, have granted clearance under manual ex-bond BE for home consumption, without obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin? (b) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing, the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption?  (c) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing,  the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption which are not physically available in the respective customs bonded warehouse either because illegally removed or substituted with some other goods?

3)   Out of the ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’ filed up to 31st March, 2015, whose status is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, in respect of how many ‘BEs for warehousing’, re-warehousing certificates have been received and entered in the system?

4)   Out of the ‘Bills of Entry for warehousing’ filed up to 31st March, 2015, whose status is ‘Active’ in the EDI System, (a) in respect of how many ‘BEs for warehousing’, re-warehousing certificates have not been received? (b) In respect of how many BEs for warehousing, action has been initiated to enforce the bond for non submission of re-warehousing certificates in time?

5)   Whether duty collected on ex-bond clearance is accounted for as revenue of the Tuticorin Customs?

6)   Please provide reference No.& date of all orders for the time being in force with regard to ex-bond clearance from customs bonded warehouses situated outside the jurisdiction of the port of import  –  circulars and instructions issued by the CBEC and Public Notice, if any, issued by Tuticorin Customs.

Your RTI Request filed successfully. Please note down the following details for further references.

Top of Form

Registration Number

CBECC/R/2015/60206

Name

Jacob P

Date of Filing

22-05-2015

RTI Fee Received

 https://rtionline.gov.in/images/rsSymbol.png  10

Payment Mode

Credit or Debit Card / RuPay Card<img src="../images/new_rotate.gif" alt="new"/>

SBI Reference number

115052277163482

Transaction Status

Transaction Successful

Request filed with

Central Board of Excise and Customs - Customs

Telephone Number

011-23095532

Email Id

uscusiii@nic.in

Bottom of Form

 

Grievance Redressal - Delhi Government

Status as on 27 Apr 2015

Registration Number     :         GNCTD/E/2014/00165

Name Of Complainant  :         Rightinformer.com

Date of Receipt   :         12 Jan 2014

Received by         :         Government of NCT of Delhi

Forwarded to       :         DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

Contact Address :         7th Level, C Wing, Delhi Secretariat,

I P ESTATE,

NEW DELHI110002

Grievance Description  :         Regarding Janata Darbar. It might take some time to synchronize the government servants to your modalities of governance. Till then you may have to move slowly. The Council of Ministers may please consider asking the citizens to air their grievance in this online pgportal.gov.in so that remedial action can be taken without much inconvenience to the public to travel all the way to the place of Janata Darbar. If, in case there are a few who are unable to send it by online, they may send it by post. Some of the officials may be assigned the special work. Government may consider providing temporary appointments to those who have passed vocational group Higher Secondary School and registered in the Employment Exchange. Please put all your efforts to reach the majority of the citizens through I.T. enabled mechanism alone. Only the remaining small number of petitioners may be asked to use the conventional methods.

Current Status     :         CASE CLOSED

Your Feedback    :         Excellent

Date of Action      :         23 Apr 2015

Details                  :         ARDEP reported that Vide Circular No. F.2(39)/2013/AR/6492-6651/c dated 28.04.2014 of Administrate Reforms Department, this department conveyed to all principal Secretaries/Secretaries/HODs of Govt. of NCT Delhi that all Pr. Secretaries/Secretaries/HODs shall remain available in their offices to meet the public from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm (2 hours) on every working day except Wednesday. Further, all other officers especially those at field level, shall make themselves available for meeting the public from 11 am to 1 pm every day except Wednesday. No meeting should be scheduled during the above mentioned period.

RTI Application_Second Hand Machinery_value enhancement

To
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.
Registration Number
CBECC/R/2014/60405
Name Jacob.P
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:- 

1(a). Names 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?   

1(b).  If no, contrary instruction, if any or action initiated and provide a copy of such communication issued.

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.

https://rtionline.gov.in

Your RTI Request filed successfully.  

Registration Number CBECC/R/2014/60372 Name Jacob, P 

Date of Filing 20-10-2014 Request filed with Central Board of Excise and Customs - Customs

Telephone Number 011-23095532 Email Id uscusiii@nic.in

First Appeal: made on 22.12.2014

First Appeal u/s 19(1) of the Right To Information Act 2005

before

Sh. Vinay K. Singh, Addl. Director, O/o ADG (HRM) DGHRD,

Room No. 408/8, Deepshikha Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008

First Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005

Appeal Date: 22-10-2014

1

Appellant details: Jacob, P. 31 A, Sri Shanmuga Nagar , Mannivakkam, Chennai – 600048.

[Office Address: Right Information International Forum, New No.33, Stringer Street, Siva Complex, II Floor, Broadway, Chennai – 600108.]  Email id: rightinformer@gmail.com     Phone/Fax: 044 22750080 Mobile Phone: 9444953456

2

CPIO/SPIO Details

Sh. Kiran Kumar, Dy. Director, O/o DGHRD, Room No. 409/8, Deepshikha Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008

3

Appeal Against

CPIO Response F. No. 8/B/03/HRD (HRM) /2014/Pt. I/5260 dated 20.11.2014

4

Reason(s) for Appeal

Aggrieved by the not furnishing of information by the CPIO, non following the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 thereby

5

Particulars of RTI application

Application Sent on

20.10.2014

Application sent by

Online - CBECC/R/2014/60372

Fee Details

Paid online

6

Particulars of CPIO/SPIO Orders

CPIO Order No.

F. No. 8/B/03/HRD (HRM) /2014/Pt. I/5260

Dated

20.11.2014

Received on

24.11.2014

7

Chronological order of events

RTI Application Sent on

20.10.2014

Annexure –A

CBEC transferred Appln.

22.10.2014

Annexure – B

CPIO Response received on

24.11.2014

Annexure – C

First Appeal filed on

22.12.2014

 

8

Brief facts leading to appeal :

The CPIO 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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

Prayer/relief sought for:

1. The 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 Act, 2005.

 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 suitable directions.

  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.

12

Presence for Hearing:

Personal Hearing may be given during which I may be permitted to peruse the file notings of CPIO.

13

Special Note:

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. 

14

Verification :

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

15

Signature of Appellant

Date : 22.12.2014

Place: Chennai

 ( Appellant )

16

Enclosures

1)     Annexure – A: Copy of RTI Application

2)     Annexure – B: Copy of CBEC letter dt 22.10.14

3)     Annexure – C: Copy of CPIO Response

17

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 from 2007.

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 therefor.

(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 / officer?

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’ governing them.

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    

Booked at Srinivasanagar S.O (Kanchipuram)

Booked On 13/02/2013

Delivered at New Delhi G.P.O. 

Delivered on   16/02/2013

 

Our Reference No. 130401 Dated 13.02.2013 

To

Central Public Information Officer,

Central Board of Excise and Customs,

New Delhi

 

Respected CPIO, 

 

APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

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 relevant authority. 

1.       The phrase ‘PROPER OFFICER’ alone is found in the Customs Act, 1962 and nowhere the phrase ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ is used.

(a) As such, whether the said notification prescribes more than one officer as ‘PROPER OFFICERS’ for a specified function?

(b) 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 query? 

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 order]? 

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. 

(a) 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 2.5.2012? 

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,

(a) 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,

(a) whether the AC/DC alone is the ‘PROPER OFFICER’ or

(b) 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 2.5.2012,

(a)      who is ‘PROPER OFFICER’ when a superior officer exercises powers of a ‘PROPER OFFICER’ u/s 5(2) of Customs Act, 1962? 

          I 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. 

Yours faithfully, 

Principal Educator, RIIF


Thanks to CBEC -   http://goo.gl/H34mw  [Proper officers in relation to the various sections of the Customs Act,1962 - Notification No. 40/2012-Customs (N.T.) New Delhi, dated the 2nd May, 2012]

RTI Application dt.13.12.11 sent by advocate to two Customs Commissionerates.
1. Please supply copy of Notification(s)/order(s) which is/are in force as on date, assigning functions as “Proper Officer” under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Section 2 (34) ibid. to the officer of customs issued by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs in respect of your Commissionerate.
In this regard kind attention is drawn to the following:
SECTION 2. Definitions (34) “proper officer”, in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the [Commissioner of Customs];

2. Please supply copy of Notification(s)/order(s) which is/are in force as on date, the various designations of officers of customs appointed vide Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In this regard kind attention is drawn to the following:
SECTION 4. Appointment of officers of customs.— (1)The [Board] may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of customs.

3. Please supply copy of general or special order(s)/Notification(s) which is/are in force as on date, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, which is in force on date, empowering an officer of Customs to make arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the jurisdiction of your Commissionerate.
In this regard kind attention is drawn to the following:
SECTION 104. Power to arrest. – [(1) If an officer of Customs empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the Commissioner of Customs has reason to believe that any person in India or within the Indian customs waters has committed an offence punishable under section 132 or section 133 or section 135 or section 135A or section 136, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.]

4. Please supply copy of general or special order(s)/Notification(s) which is/are in force on date, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, which is in force on date, empowering an officer of Customs under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In this regard kind attention is drawn to the following:
SECTION 107. Power to examine persons. – Any officer of customs empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the [Commissioner of Customs] may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the smuggling of any goods, -
(a) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing relevant to the enquiry ;
(b)examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Please supply copy of the Notification(s)/order(s) which is/are in force on date, declaring each designation of officer of Customs as ‘Gazetted Officer of Customs’ mentioned in Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In this regard kind attention is drawn to the following:
SECTION 108. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. – (1) Any Gazetted officer of Customs [* * *] shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act.