https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778930 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. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778930 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778930