1994 (3) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Reverses Confiscation Order for Editing Machine, Accepts Film Production Use

The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, overturning the order of confiscation of an Editing Machine by the Collector of Customs. The appellants, ... Import - OGL- Actual user Issues: Appeal against order of confiscation of Editing Machine, import benefit under OGL capital goods, definition of Actual User (Non-Industrial), evidence of engagement in film production, ownership of film studio for equipment installation.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of confiscation of an Editing Machine by the Collector of Customs, Airport. The appellants, registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act as a building contractor, claimed import benefit under OGL capital goods. Customs authorities rejected their claim, alleging the equipment was for film production, not building activity. The appellants presented certificates from Indian Motion Picture Producers Association and National Film Development Corporation to prove engagement in film production. However, the adjudicating authority dismissed these as insufficient evidence of film production rights, leading to the confiscation order.Dr. Kantawalla, representing the appellants, argued that the definition of Actual User (Non-Industrial) under the Import Policy supported their claim. The certificates from film industry associations and evidence of film production activities post-import were presented to establish the equipment's actual use for film production. On the other hand, Shri Mondal, the SDR, questioned the validity of the certificates and emphasized the lack of proof regarding film studio ownership or film production engagement for the required duration.The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, acknowledged that the Shops and Establishments Act registration alone did not guarantee import entitlement but found merit in the film industry certificates provided by the appellants. The Indian Motion Picture Producers Association certificate and the National Film Development Corporation registration, predating the shipment, indicated the appellants' involvement in film production. Additionally, a letter from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recommending the appellants for video facilities further supported their film production nexus. The Tribunal concluded that owning a film studio is not a prerequisite for film production engagement, as producers may utilize external studios, justifying the equipment's actual use for film production. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation order was overturned, granting relief to the appellants.