Penalty for being concerned in smuggling can apply without physical possession when conduct shows conscious participation.

Liability to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 can extend beyond the principal smuggler to a person who is consciously concerned in or takes steps to promote illegal importation, even without physical possession of the smuggled goods. The Tribunal found sufficient nexus with the smuggling of gold biscuits because the appellant's own statement showed he expected receipt of the goods from a co-noticee, and that statement was corroborated by surrounding material. On those facts, the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for being concerned in the smuggling of gold biscuits on the basis of his statement and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The appellant's own statement showed that he was expecting receipt of the gold biscuits from the co-noticee and the record also indicated corroboration from the co-noticee's statement. The Tribunal applied the principle that the expression "concerned in" covers not only the principal smuggler but also a person who consciously takes steps to promote the illegal importation, even without physical possession of the goods. The earlier Supreme Court decision relied on was treated as supporting this construction, and the Tribunal found that the facts here established a sufficient nexus with the smuggling activity.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant's conduct was found to be connected with the smuggling transaction, warranting penalty under the Customs law.

Ratio Decidendi: For liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, direct physical handling of smuggled goods is not necessary if the person consciously participates in or takes steps to promote the illegal importation of the goods.

---