Closed Joint Stock Company appealed to the arbitration

The closed joint stock company appealed to the arbitration court with a claim to the enterprise for the recovery of the difference in the value of the goods exchanged and the interest for using other people´s money in accordance with article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. As follows from the case file, an exchange agreement was concluded between the parties, according to which the company transferred several vehicles to the company according to the agreed specification, and the latter transferred the tires to the plaintiff using the same document. Based on the amounts specified in the specifications, the value of the exchanged goods was not the same. After the parties fulfilled their obligations to transfer goods, the company demanded that the company pay the difference in the value of the goods supplied and received. Having refused to satisfy its request, the company appealed to the arbitration court, which recognized the claims as justified, referring to the fact that the specifications to the contract or other documents that are an integral part of it, the conditions indicating the different prices of the goods exchanged, should be recognized as condition of their disparity. According to Article 568 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, goods are assumed to be of equal value unless it follows otherwise from the barter agreement. Therefore, exchanged goods may be recognized as equivalent if there is no price data in the contract or other documents that are an integral part of it. Since the specifications indicate different values ​​of the goods exchanged, the enterprise that received the goods of greater value is obliged to pay the price difference. In case of delay or refusal to pay, the responsibility envisaged by article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation comes. Disagreeing with the decision of the arbitration court of first instance, the defendant appealed to the court of cassation.
What decision should make the court of cassation? Are there grounds for quashing the decision of the court of first instance?