https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602 A court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not re-interpret a contract or substitute its own view where the arbitral tribunal has adopted a plausible construction of the clauses and the findings are neither perverse nor patently illegal. The tribunal's view that the concessional duty clause applied only to basic customs duty, not countervailing duty, was upheld. Objections that claims exceeded the reference, that deductions for excess quantity, short supply and liquidated damages were justified, and that the claim was barred by limitation or non-arbitrable for fraud were all rejected because the tribunal's findings were supported by the record and within its jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 08:22:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602 A court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not re-interpret a contract or substitute its own view where the arbitral tribunal has adopted a plausible construction of the clauses and the findings are neither perverse nor patently illegal. The tribunal's view that the concessional duty clause applied only to basic customs duty, not countervailing duty, was upheld. Objections that claims exceeded the reference, that deductions for excess quantity, short supply and liquidated damages were justified, and that the claim was barred by limitation or non-arbitrable for fraud were all rejected because the tribunal's findings were supported by the record and within its jurisdiction. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445602