In a relief to Nestle India which is battling a ban on sale of its 2-minute Maggi noodles in India, the Bombay high court allowed the company to export the popular snack. The curb on sales within the country would continue to operate.

The HC posted the next hearing of Nestle's challenge to July 14 now after a brief hearing on Tuesday where senior counsel Iqbal Chagla appeared for Nestle and Anil Singh appeared for the state.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had on Saturday justified its June 5 ban on Nestle India's 2-minute Maggi noodles in strongly worded 60-page affidavit that questioned the company's safety claims.

FSSAI said that 30 out of 72 samples tested positive for dangerously high levels of lead and even MSG, despite the yellow packets' 'no added MSG' claim. The central food safety authority filed its reply in the Bombay high court in response to a petition filed by Nestle India against the ban. The authority said that the "present situation has arisen only because the petitioner company has visibly failed to adhere to its own declared policy and principles." But Nestle said that no other country had complains against the noodles and that it sold in UK, Australia and Singapore among other countries.

The FSSAI said that barring the fact that the company has been manufacturing and selling Maggi for the last 30 years, its other claims of having in place "strict food safety and quality control at all Maggi factories...'' is "incorrect".

The high court bench headed by Justice VM Kanade on June 30 heard Nestle's challenge to the ban which it had not stayed at the first hearing on June 12. Nestle had challenged orders of FSSAI and the Maharashtra Commisioner of Food Safety instantly banning sale of Maggi instant noodles after tests by the government laboratories on samples take across cities showed lead content beyond the permissible limit of 2.5 part per million (ppm) in India's popular snack. The company had said that its own tests found the noodles safe to eat, but had assured the HC that it would withdraw the packets from store racks in compliance with the ban order.

Nestle said the ban was "unauthorised, arbitrary, unconstitutional for violating right to equality and trade'' and had violated principles of natural justice since it was not allowed a proper hearing. The FSSAI denied all these contentions and said the company was given a hearing and that the show cause notice was issued only for Nestle to show why its products--which are non-standardised and require government approvals in law-- ought to be approved for the future.

"The fact that the petitioners have refrained from filing a chart summary test reports and results conducted on Maggi since October 2014 can only create suspicion," said FSSAI.

The state too passed an order against Maggi in "larger public interest" of consumers. The FSSAI said the duty cast by law was "to ensure wholesomeness of food in India." It also said that the state ban was passed "independent of the FSSAI order" after "full application of mind". Nestle India had agreed to remove the "no added MSG" label.

The FSSAI said the Food Safety Standards Act of 2006 give it ample power to act against a food product found unsafe after tests across the country gave "overwhelming evidence of product being unsafe." While Delhi, Tamil Nadu and other stated returned with samples testing positive for more lead, the fact that some samples were found as compliant only goes to show the credibility of the labs functioning in a neutral and appropriate manner, said FSSAI.

The FSSAI, affidavit which gave a para wise reply to all of Nestle's 84-para petition, said that Nestle's claim of its private lab tests proving safety of maggi, can be legally challenged only through a suit and not in a writ petition, in any case.

Mocking Nestle's claim that the Kolkata lab test of Maggi samples finding a 17 ppm lead content was only because the samples were beyond their "best before date", FSSAI said, "If this argument were to be accepted, it would imply that the product will generate lead with the passage of time... stand taken is absurd and only goes on to show the desperation of the Petitioner company to fish for defences."

Source:timesofindia.indiatimes.com