cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SAP AFS Reason for rejection '00'

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

Someone knows how the Rejection reason '00' is set on sales order by SAP AFS?

We have troubles with this Rejection reason due to Orders blocked for Credit check, the users try to unblock the orders through VKM1 transaction and the system set this code '00' on the schedule line.

It would be great if someone knows the list of all standard rejection reason managed by SAP AFS and why each of this is set.

Thanks.

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

**Hi,**

Does anyone know the answer for the below question? We have a situation like this:Whenever the order is followed by a proforma invoice and later requested delivery date or any change is done in the order,Rejection reason '00' is getting automatically assigned by the system.

Here am talking about the order with substitution materials and child item is getting rejection reason 00.This is incorrect from the business expectation.While there is any change in the subs item,it is normal for the line to get deleted and then added back again.However in the process deletion is not allowed as there is subsequent document (Proforma) in the flow and hence rejection reason is getting set.Line item should not get rejected.Is there a way to avoid this? and other pointers to address the issue?

Thanks

Vidya

ian_kehoe
Active Participant
0 Kudos

Hello Vidya,

You are correct in that when you change the requested delivery date that the subitem should be deleted but due to the subsequent document (proforma invoice) the subitem cannot be deleted. This is why the reason for rejection 00 is added.

You state "Line item should not get rejected.Is there a way to avoid this?".

The line item should get rejected. It cannot be deleted due to the subsequent document so the only alternative for the system is to add the reason for rejection. This is the correct system behaviour for sales orders and I presume AFS orders work with the same logic.

Best regards,

Ian Kehoe