Hi Alireza,
Thank you for the quick response.
The referenced ER formats in your documentation are OIOUBL Project credit note, OIOUBL Project invoice, OIOUBL Sales credit note,OIOUBL Sales invoice.
These are the ER-formats I typically use for Norwegian and Danish clients. The issue, is however, that EndpointID-field in the XML needs to have the correct SchemeID for the specific country and the specific Peppol ID.
This is an excerpt for XML-lines in a produced invoice XML using “OIOUBL Sales invoice”. This is for a norwegian company sending an invoice to a Swedish customer using the “OIOUBL Sales invoice”-format:
<cac:AccountingCustomerParty><cac:Party><cbc:EndpointID schemeID="0192">556547272</cbc:EndpointID><cac:PartyIdentification><cbc:ID>556547-2726</cbc:ID></cac:PartyIdentification><cac:PartyName><cbc:Name>Kalmar Kuvert Sweden AB</cbc:Name>
As you can see the SchemeID is referencing to “0192” which is the location code for Norway. The correct could should have been and enpointID like this “0088:7300009003914”.
Its Seems that when you use of the “OIOUBL Sales invoice” is country specific and will not allow for cross country peppol invoicing as referenced in this doc: learn.microsoft.com/.../electronic-invoicing-configurable-cross-country-peppol-electronic-invoice
OIOUBL Sales invoice
How can I ensure that for instance a Norwegian company can deliver a XML-file peppol electronic invoice to a Swedish, German or for instance an Italian customer. As it is now, the peppol validation fails and the access provider searches for “electronicmal”-tag and sends the invoice in PDF as a secondary optioin to peppol.
