Exemption for digital still image cameras denied where the importer failed to prove the goods were primarily still-image cameras.

Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. depended on proving that the imported product was a digital still image camera rather than a video camera or camcorder. The Board's circular limited the benefit to digital cameras whose principal function was still image recording, even if they could record moving images only for a limited period; camcorders and video recorders with both still and moving image capabilities were excluded. As no product literature, user manual, or other evidence was produced to show that the item was primarily a still image camera, the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The denial of exemption was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. on the footing that they were digital still image cameras and not video cameras.

Analysis: The claimed benefit of the exemption notification depended on showing that the imported product answered the description of a digital still image camera falling within the exempted entry. The Board's circular clarified that only digital cameras with still image recording as the principal function, including those capable of recording moving images only for a limited period, would qualify, while camcorders or video recorders capable of recording both still and moving images would not. The appellant produced no product literature, user manual, or other evidence to establish that the imported item was primarily a still image camera. In exemption matters, the burden lies on the claimant to prove eligibility, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The imported item was not shown to be eligible for the exemption, and the denial of benefit was upheld.

---