Zhang, a farmer in Minhou County, Fujian Province, was fined for exceeding the pesticide residue standard of celery sold at the vegetable market. Specifically, Zhang helped his neighbor sell 70 catties of celery, with a total value of about 1365 yuan, from which the difference of 14 yuan was earned. However, the celery was found to have pesticide residues that exceeded the standard during the random inspection, which violated the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law.
According to the provisions of Article 124 of the Food Safety Law, if the pesticide residue index exceeds the standard in the food, and the value of the goods is less than 10,000 yuan, and it does not constitute a crime, the food and drug supervision and administration department of the people's first class at or above the county level shall confiscate the illegal income and impose a fine of not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 100,000 yuan. Therefore, Zhang was fined 50,000 yuan, and because he did not pay the fine in time, he was fined an additional 50,000 yuan, totaling 100,000 yuan.
When hearing the case, the Minhou County People's Court considered that Zhang's subjective malice was not significant and that the illegal profits were small, and held that the fine was improper. The court held that the fine should be commensurate with the nature of the violation, the degree of social harm and the level of economic and social development. Therefore, the court ultimately ruled that the fine was excessive, which was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality of excessive penalties in administrative law, and decided not to support the enforcement of the fine.
In the legal field, the severity of the penalty needs to be judged according to the specific circumstances and the provisions of the law. For the case of selling celery to earn 14 yuan but being fined 100,000 yuan, the first thing that needs to be clarified is whether the punishment complies with relevant laws and regulations and whether it is reasonable.
If the person concerned believes that the penalty is too severe, they can appeal by taking the following steps:
1.Filing an administrative reconsideration: The party concerned may, within the statutory time limit after receiving the penalty decision, apply for administrative reconsideration to the higher level of the administrative organ that made the penalty decision.
2.Initiating an administrative lawsuit: If the result of the administrative reconsideration is still not satisfied, or if the administrative organ fails to make a reconsideration decision within the statutory time limit, the party concerned may file an administrative lawsuit with the people's court within 15 days from the date of service of the reconsideration decision, or within 30 days from the date of expiration of the reconsideration period.
3.Application for reduction of punishment: In some cases, the party may also apply directly to the authority that made the penalty decision for reduction of punishment.
To make it easier to understand, here's an example of how to avoid a "small penalty": Let's say a small restaurant inadvertently causes a food poisoning incident, and it could face a hefty fine under the relevant regulations. However, if the restaurant can prove that this is the first time such an incident has occurred, and immediate remedial measures have been taken, such as improving hygiene standards, providing compensation to victims, etc., then the administrative authorities may take these factors into account when considering penalties and mitigate penalties as appropriate.
In short, the application of the law needs to comprehensively consider a variety of factors, including the degree of fault of the perpetrator, the consequences of the act, and the attitude of correction, so as to ensure that the punishment is not only in accordance with the law, but also reflects fairness and justice. In practice, both the executive and the judiciary should pursue rationality and humanization, and avoid "one-size-fits-all" mechanical law enforcement.
This case shows that specific circumstances need to be considered in the enforcement of the law to ensure that the fines are reasonable and fair. Although Zhang violated the Food Safety Law, due to the nature of his illegal act and the relatively small degree of social harm, the court held that the amount of the fine was too high. This judgment reflects the humanization of the law and the consideration of individual differences.