Calados Centro Oeste Ltda. tried to cancel a fine of R$6,000 imposed by Procon de Cuiab.
The Second Chamber of Public and Collective Law of the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso (TJMT) denied an appeal proposed by Calcenter – Calçados Centro Oeste Ltda., which attempted to annul a fine of R$6,000 imposed by Procon of Cuiabá. The company alleged irregularities in the administrative process that culminated in its punishment for the alleged practice of differentiated prices.
The company had been fined by Procon de Cuiabá in an administrative process due to the practice of differentiated prices when paying in cash, debit and credit in a single installment in relation to the Calcard Card, granting a discount on the purchase of several products only to those who use the latter.
Calcenter claimed that the fine would be inconsistent with the reason and purpose of the administrative act, in addition to the intercurrent prescription of the punishment being characterized, as it was notified on August 10, 2016, and the fine was only arbitrated in December 2017. The company also noted that the sentence was excessive, as it was fined R$6,000.
In the decision, the magistrates pointed out that it is not up to the Judiciary to delve into the merits of administrative decisions, its responsibility being only to analyze the legality of the acts. It was also pointed out by the judges that, recently, a telephone operator was fined R$ 72 thousand, which undermines the thesis of exaggeration in the punishment applied to Calcenter, thus denying the appeal.
“Thus, given the compliance with legal requirements in the application of the fine amount by the Consumer Protection and Defense Coordination, there is no need to talk about necessary intervention by the Judiciary with the aim of modifying it. Finally, I highlight that, recently, this Temporary Chamber of Public and Collective Law judged a Cost Monitoring Report, in which case the singular court had reduced the fine imposed by the State Procon to R$ 72,007.55 and this Sodalicio concluded by reestablishing the amount applied through administrative means. In view of the above, I am aware of the appeal, but I deny it, maintaining the sentence, on its own grounds”, says the decision.
