Abstract: The exposure of the “Celery Case” in Shaanxi has sparked public scrutiny over administrative rationality, revealing a disconnect between legitimacy and reasonableness within the intersecting domains of food safety and small business regulation. The case highlights two fundamental contradictions: the disparity between the value of goods involved and the severity of penalties, and the tension between punitive sanctions and the principle of restraint. The root causes lie in the inherent characteristics of small food businesses and overriding legal provisions that amplify monetary discrepancies. The mechanical application of administrative penalties and courts’ deferential stance based on the professionalism of administrative agencies render discretionary power in administrative sanctions impracticable. By re-examining the standard of “proportionality” using the principle of proportionality and credit-based regulatory measures, improving transparency in automated decision-making mechanisms, and permitting appropriate appeals and deviations by law enforcement officers, we can redesign the discretionary framework to enhance administrative rationality.

Key words: small food businesses; administrative penalty; penalty discretion; discretion mechanism