Final fact-finding findings on valuation will stand absent perversity or legal error; appeal interference refused.

Findings of fact recorded by the final fact-finding forum will not be interfered with in appeal unless they are perverse or legally erroneous. The Tribunal compared the disputed transactions with similar contracts entered into by the same buyer with other manufacturers and held that the department had not established extra-commercial considerations; the Supreme Court found no perversity or legal error in that appreciation of evidence and treated the valuation-related conclusions as factual findings not open to disturbance. The Commissioner's valuation and penalty order was therefore not sustained, and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the department failed to establish extra-commercial considerations in the transactions, and that the Commissioner's valuation and penalty order could not be sustained, warranted interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the record, compared the disputed transactions with similar contracts entered into by the same buyer with other manufacturers, and concluded that the Commissioner had not properly appreciated the material on record. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal had considered all material and found no perversity or legal error in its factual conclusions. As the controversy turned on appreciation of evidence and valuation facts, the Court treated the Tribunal's findings as findings of fact not liable to be disturbed in appeal.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal was upheld and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of fact recorded by the final fact-finding forum will not be interfered with in appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or legally erroneous.

---