Urgent: Need to clear inspection stock without inspection lot

[former_member291696]

Hi Experts,

                  I am facing an issue with the inspection type 08. The process is working fine in the past and today as well for movement type 349. But for one transaction only, the std. functionality of inspection type 08 didn't work.

Issue in detail: User has done movement type 349, the stock is moved to quality from block stock but the inspection lot is not generated. Now, we need to clear the stock from quality on urgent basis but system is not allowing to do so for movement type 350 or cancellation of material document of movt. 349 as there is no inspection lot for batch and quantity.

Error Message(QA495): Change the inspection stock of material XXXXXXX in QM only.

The master data is not changed since last 6 months. The configuration looks fine. The important thing is that the process is working fine today also. The inspection lots are generated for 349 transactions.

I have gone through various threads but didn't find the solution.

Request all experts to advise to clear this stock from quality.

[busyaban7 · Accepted solution]

Hi Akhil,

It seems a once off incident. Please try using the OSS note 48815 program ZQEVAC20 to move the stock from quality to unrestricted, where MvT 321 will be posted at background. This will fix this particular inconsistency.

Thanks,

Arijit

[former_member291696 · Accepted solution]

Hi Arijit,

Thanks for the reply. I will check and let you know.

Regards,

Akhil

[former_member436214 · Accepted solution]

Thank You .

I have had the same problem .

NOTE 48815 Solve it .

Thanks

Pawel

[former_member291696]

Hi Experts,

Please let me know if anybody have any idea.

[former_member291696]

Hi Arijit,

Further to our discussion, the existing inconsistencies are removed by using note 48815 but now we have few more examples with the same issue.

We corrected those with the help of this note as well.

Now, I want to correct this problem in such a way that it should not come in future transactions.

Is there any way to accomplish it?

Is there any note which need to implement along with note 48815 in order to avoid this issue in future and which fix this problem permanently?

Thanks in advance.

[busyaban7]

Hi Akhil,

Sorry, I am not aware of any such notes which may be proactively applied to remove future system inconsistencies.

Thanks,

Arijit

[former_member291696]

Hi Arijit,

I have tested the note in development and quality it is working fine.

Thanks for the quick response.

Now, I will check in production system and confirm.

[former_member291696]

The issue has been resolved.

Thanks

[busyaban7]

Thanks!!

[holger_hartung]

Hi,

could you explain, why std function with 08 inspection type dosen't work? It should be...

[former_member291696]

Hi Holger,

I also don't know why it didn't work. I am checking the root cause.

Thanks,

Akhil