Section 37 interference is limited where a customs duty reimbursement award rests on a reasonable contractual interpretation and record-based findings.

In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, interference with a concurrent arbitral and court finding is limited to patent illegality or a comparable grave error. On the contractual allocation of customs and import duty, the tribunal found that the employer had undertaken to facilitate the exemption, the certificate was sought in time but furnished only after import, and the goods were imported and used for the project with the employer's knowledge. As the customs authorities declined refund because the certificate was not produced at clearance, the award directing reimbursement was treated as a reasonable and possible view and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award directing reimbursement of customs duty and the order affirming it suffered from any patent illegality warranting interference in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the contractual allocation of liability for customs and import duty, the employer's obligation to facilitate exemption under the governing notification, and the fact that the required exemption certificate was sought in time but furnished belatedly after import. The record showed that the goods were imported and used for the project with the employer's knowledge, that the employer had accepted the installation and commissioning, and that the customs authorities declined refund because the statutory and notification-based certificate had not been produced at the time of clearance. In appeal under Section 37, interference is confined to cases of patent illegality or similarly grave error, and a plausible view taken by the arbitral tribunal and affirmed by the court below is not to be disturbed.

Conclusion: The award and its affirmation were held to be based on a reasonable and possible view, and no ground for interference was made out. The contractor was not to be saddled with the customs duty, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed, as the concurrent findings upholding reimbursement of customs duty disclosed no patent illegality or perversity.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a concurrent award and court finding based on a reasonable interpretation of the contract and the record cannot be interfered with unless patent illegality or a comparable jurisdictional error is shown.

---