Duplicate Transporter payment

Hi,
I wanna restrict the double payment to transporter against the same sales Invoice/Delivery.
Please suggest.
Regards
Ankur
Edited by: Ankur Gupta on Jun 6, 2011 11:08 AM

Please search the forum with the text TRANSPORTATION so that you will get many threads.  Take the input from there, try on your own and still if you face any issue, please post it.
Being an old member, I dont want to stress on the importance of putting efforts to search the forum which you should be aware of.
thanks
G. Lakshmipathi

Similar Messages

  • Does R/3 have a report on duplicate invoice payments?

    Hello,
    Is there a report in "standard" R/3 that will give FI managers a listing of any duplicate invoice payments?
    Table BSIP tracks "Double Documents" and I was wondering if there are any reports that can use that table.
    Also, is there a Financial Audit system built into SAP?
    I'm a BASIS dweeb (not an FI person) so of course managers come to me with ANY kind of SAP question!
    Thx.
    Andy Jacobs

    hi,
    look <a href="http://help.sap.com/saphelp_47x200/helpdata/en/ce/4f3e39ea3aee02e10000000a114084/frameset.htm">here</a>
    and LFB1-REPRF
    Andreas

  • SRM - Transport Payment Terms

    Hello,
    we are implementing SRM 4.0 in standalone scenario.
    We would like to know how payment terms could be transpored from a dev system to a validation system and to a production system.
    Indeed, payment terms which are created through SPRO dedicated transaction are put into a transport request with the logical system related to the dev system. Therefore, after transport to val, the logical system is not correct ...
    We have noticed that the tables BBP_PAYTERM and BBP_PAYTERM_TEXT which handle the payment terms could be maintained directly through SE16.
    We then thought to maintain all our records directly into dev system with SE16 for logical systems val & pro and to put them manually into a transport request.
    Do you know a better solution ?
    Thank you for your help.
    Regards.
    Fabrice

    Hi Fabrice,
    Payment terms can be replicated from backends with report BBP_UPLOAD_PAYMENT_TERMS (in that case they have the backend Logical System as key) or maintained locally (in that case the LS is the local one).
    For backend values, you can replicate them between each val/val, prod/prod server.
    But for local ones, you are right, the source LS is transported with the values. So we have to adapt the LS of those tables in the target system.
    You should run transaction BDLS, limited on this table, to adapt the LS.
    Rgds
    Christophe
    PS: please reward points for helpful answers

  • Transporter payment

    Hello,
    The scenario is sometimes payment is to be made on proforma invoice issued by supplier, against letter of credit.
    how it will happen in sap.
    urgent

    Hi,
    I think it can be handled by means of the downpayments(Special GL transactions).
    Correct me if Iam wrong.
    Aravind.
    Assign points if helpful

  • Duplicate Invoices/Payments Identification

    Hello,
    I have been given a task to identify potential duplicated invoices made. I have managed to extract all AP data from SAP R/3 which shows all invoices paid for a given year.
    I want to use this data either on Excel or Access to identify duplicated invoices. However, the criteria I want to use is based on the following:
           Same vendor number, same invoice number, same invoice date and same invoice amount, or
           Same vendor number, same invoice number, same invoice date and different invoice amount, or
           Same vendor number, same invoice number, same invoice amount, different invoice date, or
           Same vendor number, same invoice date, same invoice amount, different invoice number, or
              Same invoice number, same invoice date, same invoice amount, different vendor number, and so on…
    So based on either set of criteria shown above, a report must be pulled out that shows me the duplicated invoices.
    In relation to the invoice numbers, it would also be beneficial to pull out invoices who have similar reference numbers. For example, if the same invoice is captured twice on SAP – one with a reference number “1234” and the other with “1234.” SAP thinks that two different invoices were captured but in fact it’s the same invoice. This could also be a duplicated invoice.
    Is there some macro, or code, of set of rules that I can use either on Excel or Access to implement this? I have looked everywhere but have not come up with a proper solution.
    In essence, I want to use Excel or Access as an audit software.
    Any help will be much appreciated.

    one method might be to use sort, filter, group, outline?
    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/sort-data-in-a-range-or-table-HP010342909.aspx?CTT=1#_Toc246836976
    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/outline-group-data-in-a-worksheet-HA010342744.aspx?CTT=1
    Don
    (Please take a moment to "Vote as Helpful" and/or "Mark as Answer", where applicable.
    This helps the community, keeps the forums tidy, and recognises useful contributions. Thanks!)

  • Webapp (requires payment) creating multiple/duplicate products

    Each time someone submits a new Webapp that requires payment, a new Ecommerce product is created.  Is there a way to have the Webapp use the same product?  I also have an online shop, and it's making the product management overwhelming.

    I have tested all sorts workarounds for this problem. My situation was that we had a single payment webform set up and we were using this same form to accept payment for multiple events (the web form HTML code was inserted into the event detail and used to submit the event booking).
    Here's what was happening:
    A product was automatically created by Business Catalyst. Product code is the WebFormID of the webform used to submit the order. Product name is a concatenation of {web form name}/{event name}
    An order was created in the CRM referencing the new product.
    BC will create a new product when an order is placed unless the combination of Product Code + Product Name already exists. This is patently stupid since the Product Code is the primary key here. In fact, BC even warns you that this is bad as soon as you view the product page in admin.
    I searched everywhere I could think of to find a way to tell the web form which product to use when creating the order. No joy. There does not seem to be a way to override the automatic creation algorithm. I posted a question about this in the forum here and never got a response.
    As Shannon points out, these ARE real products as far as the database, OneSaas etc are concerned. We use OneSaas to synchronise to Saasu and this synchronisation process repeatedly failed due to missing product codes in Saasu (which is the product master by the way).
    So, the only solution I could find was to duplicate our payment WebForm so that there is a unique and distinct form for every event our customers could purchase. I then modified each event so that it used the corresponding WebFormID of it's dedicated WebForm in the action URL query parameters. I didn't need to modify anything else in the event (since every webform is exactly the same - the HTML is identical. Hooray for code re-use ... NOT!).
    In Saasu, I then create an Item to represent each event booking using the WebFormID as the Item code. There's no need to run around and create the products on BC. It will create diabolical looking product names using the WebFormID and if you create these manually you NEED to make sure that the name you enter is EXACTLY as BC will create it ... or you'll get a duplicate product ... again.
    OneSaas now works correctly as we have it set up to pull in products from Saasu. It can pick up the new orders and relate these to Saasu products/items and then sync the invoices to Saasu.
    Problems With This Approach
    Your WebForm code is duplicated across multiple events. If you want to, say, change the payment methods that you accept you'll need to change each and every webform as well as modify the HTML code in the event.
    You get a unique product for every event that you offer. This may not be what you want (my client didn't). At least it will synchronise.
    You MUST remember to create products in Saasu any time you offer a new event. At least you can use a sensible Item name in Saaus (rather than the auto-created BC garbage) as matching is only done on the code.
    If you have an external process that extracts Items from Saasu so that you can create matching products in BC you'll need to be careful not to overwrite the product names for your webform related products. Or you'll get a duplicate product created on the next order.
    If anyone has a better approach I'd be happy to hear it.

  • Payment Run Programe Issue Duplicate Enrty in REGUH & REGUP

    Dear All
    I am facing a problem in F-58 transaction, I have developed customized Cheque format in Smartforms, and I customized the standard payment run program RFFOUS_C to ZRFFOU_C, when I payment with F-58 my predefine format will be printout, it is working fine but some time payment tables(REGUH & REGUP) have duplicate the payment Item anybody have some idea or solution whatu2019s goes wrong. Followings are sample entry
    BKPF Entry                                                                               
    MANDT BUKRS BELNR                GJAHR BLART BLDAT         BUDAT           MONAT           CPUDT
      100         2000   1500003026  2010    KZ       07.04.2010 07.04.2010    10 07.04.2010 11:02:47       
    REGUH Entry
      MANDT LAUFD      LAUFI   ZBUKR LIFNR      KUNNR EMPFG VBLNR      AVISG WAERS
       100   07.04.2010 00001O  2000   0000120886             1500003026       PKR 
      100   07.04.2010 00002O   2000   0000120886             1500003026       PKR   
    REGUP ENTRY
    MANDT LAUFD      LAUFI  XVORL ZBUKR LIFNR      KUNNR EMPFG VBLNR      BUKRS BELNR                                                                               
    100   07.04.2010 00001O       2000   0000120886             1500003026 BPL   1500003026
    100   07.04.2010 00001O       2000   0000120886             1500003026 BPL   1500003026
    100   07.04.2010 00002O       2000   0000120886             1500003026 BPL   1500003026
    100   07.04.2010 00002O       2000   0000120886             1500003026 BPL   1500003026
    Thanks In Advance

    The field LAUFI (additional identification) is used to distinguish between several runs with the same reconciliation key date. You can freely define the identification.So multiple entries are result of multiple runs.

  • Transporter's payment

    Hi all,
    FB60 :- Instant deductions from Transporter's payment because of leakage/damage/Pilferage(w/o debit memo), please explain me how to configure this scenario.

    hi,
    Transporter's payment
    You are define tds condition transporter payment,so automatic system deduct the tds. and you are pass the entry.
    tds rate define.
    Select Firm ( OT)
    rohit

  • Vendor  payment terms replication

    Hi,
    Vendor payment terms are not getting replicated to SRM 4.0 from ECC 5.0.We have batch jobs running for vendor replication ( new and update).When i change the payment terms  in ECC , it is  not coming to SRM.I checked in Manage BPs.
    Thanks for suggesting any report / tables where i can find number of vendors that are different in both the systems and  replication process. ( As i am unable to  use the t code BBPGETVD, BBPUPDVD in easyaccess)
    Thanks a lot.

    Hi pramod,
    OK. I got it.
    SAP Note 1104581 -No logical system in customizing view
    BBPV_PTERM_LOCAL
    Symptom
    You have transported local payment term Customizing (view BBPV_PTERM_LOCAL)
    from your SRM development system to a productive system.
    The transported payment terms cannot be selected for local purchase orders
    and are not visible in Customizing step "Supplier Relationship Management >
    SRM Server > Cross-Application Basic Settings > Create Payment Conditions".
    More TermsZTERM, pay, BBP_POC, payment tab, terms of payment
    Cause and Prerequisites
    Local payment terms must have the local logical system ID in the
    corresponding fields of tables BBP_PAYTERM and BBP_PAYTERM_TEXT.
    Solution
    Please implement this note or the relevant Support Package.
    You can then use report BBPCU_PAYTERM_CONV to change the logical system of
    the transported entries to the local SRM logical system.
    In the single selection parameter, enter the logical system of the
    transported entries.
    An error will be generated if the entered logical system exists in table
    BBP_BACKEND_DEST.
    If an entry already exists with the same key (apart from logical system
    name) as the tranported entry, no conversion will take place.
    The keys of the converted payment terms and their texts will be listed
    after executing the program.
    The keys of the payment terms that cannot be converted will also be lsited.
    table BBP_PAYTERM or BBP_PAYTERM_TEXT.
    BBPM_BUT_FRG0061
    Payment conditions
    i will also check and come back to you.
    regards
    muthu

  • Payment order use different check

    I already create check using fch5, for one payment order.
    now I want to create another check for that payment order, what steps should I do if I don't want to void the old check?

    No, if payment document is 3000 USD, Dr: vendor: 3000, Cr: bank 3000, I create first check 3000, then I create another one 3000,
    The company's money gone. then something should be done to control duplicate check payment?
    how to clear the vendor account after I issue the first check?

  • What to do about duplicate iCloud accounts?

    Today, I noticed duplicate birthdays in Calendar. Upon checking my Contacts.app preferences, I found that I had two iCloud accounts listed:
    [email protected]
    and
    [email protected]
    Yes, the only difference is capitalization.
    I tried deleting one by clicking the minus button at the bottom of the Preferences panel, but it came back after a few moments. I then unchecked the "Enable this account" button on one of them; but, I have no idea which one I really should disable. Really, there should only be one account showing; I shouldn't have to disable either of them.
    Another question, I now see that I have duplicate groups: On my Mac, and iCloud. Yes, they are both enabled in Contacts preferences. I wonder if I could and should turn off the On my Mac account or that will cause trouble. I would also like to move the iCloud group above the On my Mac; but, I don't seem able to do that.
    Any suggestions on either of these two items?

    > who should I call to avoid being charged?
    You might want to call your credit card company and warn them Apple could present a duplicate charge and to reject it up front ...
    FWIW: It took 5 months to clear a duplicate (iMac) payment they put on my card, and I got no apology or compensation of any sort.
    /bitter taste off

  • SAP ISU FICA :Elimination pending clarify item

    I'm working in FICA module ISU .We process a duplicate incoming payment file The other day ,so the items was accounted before but I have a payment lot duplicate incoming payment  now into the FPCPL transaction .I cannot clarified them because is a duplicate incoming payment so i would like delete all the duplicate incoming payment lot and that disappear into the FPCPL transaction but without create inconsistencies into the system , but i donu2019t know how .
    I really appreciate your help.
    Thanks and kind regards

    Hi ,
    First of all it is advisable that you dont upload duplicate items .
    Secondly regarding your issues use FP08 to reverse the documents that you feel are duplicate and want to remove from clarification worklist .
    On the other hand you can also use the T code FCUM for write off of items from clarification worklist , for that you will have to make the settings for tansfer postings to .
    Check for that option as here you can write off in mass for multiple clearing accounts .
    Regards ,
    Dewang T

  • To capture Trip details during MIGO

    Dear SAP Team,
    I have two scenerios being in practise by my client Request that if any one can give me the solution
    1.  When the material supplier is not taking  care of the transport ,at the time of good receipt there is one  activity called "TRIP DETAILS" done by my client during GR. Details is maintaied in the "Trip details "for transporter payment like transporter name ,vehicle no, gate pass no,material, Transport Order  no with the transporter .They also want during this activity the trip detail tab page must be made mandatory so that the user does not omit the relevant  transporter data
    2.Vendor supplies materials to the Client in two ways - One where vendor take care of the freight cost which can be tracked in PO. In second case , they arranges the transport for whom the transport contract exists based on the distance.When the GR is made for  this the product cost to be captured where there are two activities for the material.( One is material supplied by vendor / Transporter.The payment is done for the two  sepately
    Regards,
    Suresh.R

    In both the cases, freight will be there. So goto M/06 select your condition type-go to details- Control data 2- here maintain Vendor in GR - 2.
    This is nothing but delivery cost, you can change the vendor code (either your transporter or main vendor) during GR.
    As far as other transport details are concerned, you can make the field "header Text' mandatory & use it to maintain such details.

  • Miro and F-60

    For a po item there are two vendors one for goods supplier and other for delivery charges to local transporter. We have done payment to goods supplier using miro but payment to transport vendor is posted using FI transaction. How can we identify the list of miro s for which the status shows pending for transporter payments and how do we identify the payment made through fi are with reference to which po.

    Hi
    Run tcode MIRO for this PO with the option planned delivery cost instead goods/service items. If you have huge differences, then do 2 FI documents, one clearing the document from MIRO and the right amount with FB60.
    I hope this helps you
    Regards
    Eduardo

  • Primary Freight

    Dear Friends,
    We have done a z development for LR entry(Lorry Receipt) for Primary and secondary Freight.
    As soon as shipment completes user has to do the LR entry of concerned transporter per shipment wise.
    LR no is a receipt from transporter against the material he is going to transport to customer or plant.
    LR contains the invoice numbers/ gross value/date etc.
    On the basis LR and proof of delivery(2nd copy of LR signed/stamped by receiver)payment made to transporter.
    One LR no. may be of multiple deliveries/invoices.
    Issue we are facing in case of primary freight(plant to plant transfer) where some supplying plant forgets to do the LR entry.
    Again we had created a field LR no and date and made the field mandatory at the time of MIGO. In MIGO as soon as users enters the delivery no. its update the LR no from the Z table and if supplying plant has not done the LR entry , receiving plant has to do with the reference of hard copy.
    Many time user does the wrong entry due to which transporter payment got delayed.
    Can anyone give a better solution for this so that timely payment or deduction of payment can be managed.
    Regards
    Ravi

    and made the field mandatory at the time of MIGO
    Instead of making the field mandatory in receiving plant, as already suggested, have a control in such a way that sending plant should update the LR entry within 3 or 5 days (depending upon client's discretion), failing which, all out going transactions should be locked.  Only top management should have the authorization to release this lock.  On the other hand, if the transporter enjoys very good business with your client, then you can very well hand over this work to the transporter who has to update then and there when they release LR.  This practice is being followed by many major clients.  By doing so, your client can not only pass on the message that LR updation will have parallel impact on their payment, but also users job is simplified.  They just need to validate the data which can be done by having some report with details like Transporter name, Vehicle no. (if required), date of despatch, Delivery reference etc.
    G. Lakshmipathi

Maybe you are looking for