INVOIC — EDIFACT Invoice (D.99B)

The INVOIC message represents a commercial invoice, a credit note or a request for payment. It covers simple purchases as well as complex transactions with multi-rate VAT, allowances/charges and consolidated billing. This page summarises the segment structure as published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.99B.

Purpose

The INVOIC message represents a commercial invoice, a credit note or a request for payment. It covers simple purchases as well as complex transactions with multi-rate VAT, allowances/charges and consolidated billing.

This page focuses on the structure published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.99B. The segments listed, their status (M / C), position and repetition factor are extracted from the official file invoic_c.htm hosted on service.unece.org.

Segment structure

The INVOIC D.99B message has 106 header entries, 105 detail entries and 16 summary entries (segments and groups combined). Groups are shown in bold and their members are indented by actual nesting depth.

Header

Detail

Summary

Changes vs D.96A

Top-level differences between D.96A and D.99B for the INVOIC message (segments directly inside header / detail / summary, ignoring nested groups). The comparison is indicative: a given tag may have evolved inside nested groups without showing up in this synthesis.

Segments added vs D.96A

• DGS in the header section (status C, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• GIR in the header section (status C, repeat ×10) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• TSR in the header section (status C, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• EQD in the header section (status M, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• SEL in the header section (status C, repeat ×9) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• DGS in the detail section (status C, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• FII in the detail section (status C, repeat ×5) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• FTX in the summary section (status C, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.

Segments removed vs D.96A

• PAT in the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.99B at the same level.
• PAT in the detail section — present in D.96A but missing in D.99B at the same level.

Status changes (M ↔ C)

• QTY (header): status M in D.96A → C in D.99B.
• RTE (header): status M in D.96A → C in D.99B.

Max-repeat changes

• FTX (header): repeat ×10 in D.96A → ×99 in D.99B.
• LOC (header): repeat ×25 in D.96A → ×10 in D.99B.
• QTY (header): repeat ×1 in D.96A → ×2 in D.99B.
• MOA (header): repeat ×1 in D.96A → ×2 in D.99B.
• RTE (header): repeat ×1 in D.96A → ×99 in D.99B.
• IMD (detail): repeat ×10 in D.96A → ×99 in D.99B.
• FTX (detail): repeat ×5 in D.96A → ×99 in D.99B.

Structural example

Minimal example of an INVOIC D.99B message with mandatory segments only. The goal is to show the exact version declared in UNH (INVOIC:D:99B:UN) — not to replicate a full business case (see the INVOIC D.96A page for an annotated example).

UNB+UNOC:3+5410000000123:14+5410000000456:14+260514:1430+CTRL099001'
UNH+1+INVOIC:D:99B:UN'
BGM+380+INV456789+9'
DTM+137:20260514:102'
NAD+SU+5410000000456::9'
NAD+BY+5410000000123::9'
CUX+2:EUR:4'
LIN+1++3520000001234:EN'
QTY+47:10'
MOA+203:420.00'
PRI+AAA:42.00'
UNS+S'
MOA+77:504.00'
MOA+125:420.00'
MOA+124:84.00'
TAX+7+VAT+++:::20'
UNT+16+1'
UNZ+1+CTRL099001'

Common errors

• Misaligned UNH tokens — The UNH+...+INVOIC:D:99B:UN token must reflect exactly the directory in use — a mismatch between the UNH release and the release agreed with the partner is rejected by every strict validator.
• Wrong UNT segment count — The value after UNT+ must include UNH and UNT themselves. By far the most common sender-side error, regardless of the directory in use.
• Stale code lists — Between D.96A and D.99B, several code lists received new qualifiers (DTM status, RFF qualifier, NAD codes…). Reusing an older directory’s code tables triggers warnings or even rejections depending on the partner’s strict-conformance mode.

Related messages

Other versions of this message available on ediverse.io: INVOIC D.96A, INVOIC D.01B, INVOIC D.10A, INVOIC D.16B, INVOIC D.21B, INVOIC D.24A, INVOIC D.97A, INVOIC D.00B, INVOIC D.02B, INVOIC D.05A, INVOIC D.08A, INVOIC D.13B, INVOIC D.18B, INVOIC D.20B.

X12 functional equivalent: X12 810.

← All EDIFACT versions