Anil G. Merchant Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and ors. - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Mar-07-1985

Court: Chennai

LAW: the Customs Act, the Bill of Entry, the Customs Act, section 104(1, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, Article 22(1, Constitution, the Customs Act, Constitution, the Customs Act, section 107, the Customs Act, section 107, section 108, section 108, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, Article 21 of the Constitution, Article 22, Article 21, Article 39A of the Constitution, the Customs Act, Article 39A, Article 21, Article 21, article 21, section 108, the National Security Act, Section 161(2, Article 20(3, section 161(2, the Customs Act, section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, the Customs Act, Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, Constitution, the Sea Customs Act, Article 22(1, Constitution, section 104 nor, the Customs Act, Constitutional, the Customs Act, Section 108, Constitution

ORG: ORDER1, W.P., Bill of Entry, the Customs Authorities, Magistrate, Air, Department, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Department, Department, Customs, Court, the Government, Law Weekly Criminal, Customs, the Customs Department, the Supreme Court, Court, Supreme Court, Maharashtra A.I.R., the Supreme Court, State, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Delhi Administration, the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the District Magistrate, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Advisory Board, the Supreme Court, US 436, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Sea Customs Act, the Sea Customs Act, Magistrate, Supreme Court, the Sea Customs Act, the Sea Customs Act, S.C. 447, COFEPOSA, Fiat, the Customs Divisional, the Government of Gujarat, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Nandini Satpathy's, W.P. 65, Supreme Court, the Supreme Court

CARDINAL: 163, 7, one, 085 - 76881836, 3-1-1985, 4, 5, one, 26, 5, two, 5-1.1985, 5, 3-1-1985, 5, 10, 21, 30, three, 2, 22(1, 39A, 3. Section 107, 3, 108, 1984(15)ELT289(Mad, 289, 48, 107, 108, 4., 3, 23-8-1975, 3, 1982CriLJ340, 1978CriLJ968, 59, 384, 20(3, 22(1, 20(3, 22(1, one, 1970CriLJ863, 3, 302, two, one, five, 4, one, Two, one, 5, 6, 2 1/2, One, one, One, one, 4., 114, 510, 511, 134A

DATE: 1985, the same day, the 3rd of January, 1985, 3rd of January, 1985, the same day, 1983, 1956CriLJ152, 1978, 1981, 1974, Articles 19. 21 and 22(5, 1966, 1962, Articles 20(3, 1976, 1962, 1979, 1979CriLJ645, 1979, 1974, that day, the next day, about 6 to 8 months, a month, 1985, 1985

PERSON: Alkylaryl, S. N. (, Sudharsan Chemicals, Bangalore, Lakshmi Chemicals, Magistrate, Tamil Nadu, M. H. Hoskot v. State, Francis Coralie v. Union, A. K. Roy v. Union of India, Nahdini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani, Lawyer, Art, Miranda, Art, Art, R. C. Mehta, West Bengal, Veera Ibrahim v. State of, Gopal Ghermal Mehta, Art

GPE: Karnataka, T. Nagar, Delhi, A.I.R., S.C., Delhi, Art, Ashadevi, Sevantilal, Ashadevi, India

TIME: 10 a.m., 3.30 p.m., the night, stated hours, 8-1-1985, nights, twenty-four hours, 24 hours

FAC: the Air Port

PRODUCT: Complex, a Full Bench

ORDINAL: 4th, 5th, third, third, first

NORP: Roshan v. Joint, Nathu v. State, K., K.

EVENT: S.C. 1458, S.C. 447

QUANTITY: 3 kgs