On June 12th, a Chinese PV company executive was detained for investigation by German authorities at Munich Airport, attracting significant attention. According to reports from Chinese media such as the “Shanghai Securities News” on July 18th, the issues related to the executive are possibly linked to the Minimum Import Price (MIP) agreement for photovoltaic products implemented by China and Europe prior to 2018. After being detained for almost a month, on July 7th, the executive was finally allowed to return to China after paying the required fines and can now continue to travel abroad normally.
The individual in question, who was assisting with the investigation, was originally traveling to participate in the 2023 Intersolar Europe, an international solar energy technology exhibition held in Munich, Germany. However, upon disembarking from the plane, they were taken into custody. During their stay, they were briefly released to fulfill their exhibition duties at the hotel. However, instead of returning home with other exhibitors after the exhibition, they remained in Germany to assist with the investigation.
Earlier reports from various Chinese media outlets identified the individual being investigated as Pu Yonghua, associated with Jiangsu GCL New Energy Co., Ltd.
According to the latest reports from Chinese media, several PV industry insiders and experts have expressed that this incident has caused significant shockwaves within the PV industry and among Chinese and European enterprises. Despite the individual’s return to China, domestic PV companies are advised to remain vigilant. It is essential for companies engaging in overseas operations to thoroughly research the legal regulations and policy changes of the host country and strive to ensure compliance.
An insider from the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products stated, “This incident is not the first to occur, and it will not impact Sino-European PV trade and cooperation. It is merely an isolated case involving individual companies and executives under the settlement arrangements of the previous ‘double remedies.’ The events in question are still historical issues related to pricing commitments, and individual companies that violated regulations at the time need to pay the corresponding taxes.” However, he also mentioned that this may not be the last such incident, and similar situations may occur in the future.