Penal liability for smuggled importation requires proof of conscious participation, not mere suspicion of intended purchase.

A penal smuggling provision using the words "concerned in" extends to persons who consciously promote unlawful importation, even without physical handling of the goods. Liability, however, still requires evidence of conscious participation in or connection with the importation itself. On the facts, the material showed at most that the respondent may have arranged to purchase the smuggled gold, which was insufficient to establish involvement in the importation. The evidence therefore did not bring him within Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, and penalty could not be imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts proved, the respondent was "concerned in" the importation of smuggled gold so as to attract penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.

Analysis: Section 167(8) is a penal provision intended to deter smuggling and the persons who aid or abet such activity, and the expression "concerned in" is wide enough to include those who consciously promote the unlawful importation even without physical handling of the goods. On the facts, however, the circumstances only justified an inference that the respondent may have arranged to purchase the gold; they did not establish that he participated in, or was otherwise connected with, the acts leading to its importation. The courts below had therefore correctly held that the evidence was insufficient to bring him within the scope of the provision.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable to penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, as there was no sufficient proof that he was concerned in the importation of the smuggled gold.

Ratio Decidendi: For liability under a penal smuggling provision using the words "concerned in", there must be evidence showing conscious participation in or connection with the importation itself; suspicion or an inference of intended purchase is not enough.

---