India on Wednesday failed to attend a meeting in Berlin where a multilateral agreement was to be entered under which it had to give a commitment that it would follow international standards of confidentiality for the information received relating to blackmoney. It also fears that treaties for exchange of information on blackmoney holders with countries like USA, Germany and Switzerland may be delayed on grounds of breach of confidentiality if names of account-holders are disclosed improperly.

Official sources said that India was not able to attend a meeting in Berlin where New Delhi was going to sign a multilateral competent authority agreement. Government of India had to give an international commitment that it would follow international standards on information received. Late night reports indicate that India was not able to attend that meet, they said without citing any reasons for the absence. Government fears emanate against the backdrop of the raging debate in the country over disclosure of names of blackmoney holders in foreign banks given by other government and entities.On a day the government provided to the Supreme Court a list of 627 individuals who have accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, government sources feared adverse consequences if the names get disclosed or come to public domain.

They point out that when the Supreme Court gave an order on May 1 this year asking for disclosure of 8 names, against whom investigations were concluded, to be given to petitioner Ram Jethmalani despite the fact that no evidence of wrong doing was found against them, there was a contradiction with an earlier order. The Court had earlier in 2011 clearly stated that disclosure of names against whom no evidence of wrong-doing was found would lead to "dangerous circumstances".

It had also said that only after the state arrives as a prima facie conclusion of wrong doing based on material evidence only then would a question arise on the right of the public to be informed. After the 8 names got into public domain, Germany wrote to India in June this year expressing surprise at this revelation and asked India to provide an explanation of how this information was disclosed.

Germany wrote that the information it had provided of Liechtenstein Bank account holders in March 2009 was clearly under tax treaty and was subject to confidentiality obligations. Referring to interpretations that information received from foreign countries can be used in hearings before the Supreme Court, which is against the general and international understanding that confidentiality clause in the treaties provides for information which can only be used for tax purposes and assessment and enforcement The combined effect of all this was foreign countries with which India still does not have any treaty or arrangement to exchange information, or countries which shared some information had cold feet for further cooperation.

For example, sources said, India is set to sign the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) with the USA for automatic exchange of information and this IGA is also subject to confidentiality clause. They feared that there may be delays in signing the IGA with USA if the interpretation of the confidentiality clause remains different from the international interpretation. Another example is that India was going to sign a Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in Berlin today.

However, for signing the agreement, the Government of India had to give an international commitment that it would follow international standards for the information received. India could not attend the meeting.Countries which have legally shared information with India so far has been under some treaty or agreement which contains confidentiality clause, the sources said adding that there was no other way to obtaining information.