https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234896 A contractual price fixed in the purchase order could not be unilaterally reduced merely because the imported components were said to be below the maximum CIF value; that cap governed reimbursement for customs duty variation, and the arbitral view treating the withholding as unjustified was a plausible interpretation not open to interference under Section 34. A counter claim for customs duty variation also failed because no cogent evidence proved any actual reduction in duty or the quantum claimed, and the rejection was supportable on the record. The award and the refusal to interfere were sustained. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:50:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234896 A contractual price fixed in the purchase order could not be unilaterally reduced merely because the imported components were said to be below the maximum CIF value; that cap governed reimbursement for customs duty variation, and the arbitral view treating the withholding as unjustified was a plausible interpretation not open to interference under Section 34. A counter claim for customs duty variation also failed because no cogent evidence proved any actual reduction in duty or the quantum claimed, and the rejection was supportable on the record. The award and the refusal to interfere were sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234896