Skip to main content

Test Home
You & IATA

Search

You are here: Home » Services » Financial Services » Simplified Interline Settlement » SIS Forums
  • Print this page
  • Share this page

SFI 40 Total Provisional Adjustment Amount Validation

This is a read-only copy of the discussions. To view the original, where you can reply, go here. For info on how to log in, please see the instructions.

Created by Harry H (US Airways, Inc.) on 2011-12-09 11:03:15 Back to Topics

SFI 40 Total Provisional Adjustment Amount Validation

I need to clarify the rules used when applying the Total Provisional Adjustment figure in determining the net provisional amount in SFI 40 (Invoice Total Record).  We received provisional billing records wherein elements 41, 45 and 53 which are the depressant amounts for ISC, Tax and Handling fee are populated.  The total amount however, of elements 41, 45, and 53 is not reflected into element 63 (Total Provisional Adjustment) but rather it is the amount representing the product of element 12 (Total Gross Value) multiplied by Element 10 (Provisional Adjustment Rate).  It is also worthwhile to note that the totals for elements 41, 45 and 53 do not tie up to the product of element 12 multiplied by element 10.  Per the ISPG, the validation performed for element 63 is:

 

(1)   In case Provisional Adjustment Rate is provided, this should equal to Total Gross Value multiplied by Provisional Adjustment Rate.

(2)   In case individual absorption amounts are provided, the Total Provisional Adjustment Amount should be equal to the sum of the total individual absorption amounts (Fare, ISC, UATP, Tax, HF, Other Commission, VAT) taking into account the individual sign fields.

 

In my example, the data in element 63 passed SIS validation (1) above.  However, it would have failed SIS validation (2).  My question is does the record need to pass only one validation criteria for element 63 --- either (1) or (2) in order for it to be accepted?  Does SIS validation (1) hold a higher hierarchy than SIS validation (2)?  Also, in the example above only the ISC, Tax and HF absorption amounts were populated with positive integers while the absorption amounts for Fare, UATP, Other Commission and VAT were populated with zeroes, would this mean that SIS validation (2) would not have been performed because the four elements did not contain positive integers?

 

Harry H

Replied by Ashley H on 2012-04-11 10:23:00

Dear Harry,

 

For this query would you be able to provide us the file or just the file name. We can then further investigate and get back to you. Please send the info to sisoperations@iata.org.

 

Regards,

Ashley

 

From: HUGHES Harry
Posted At: December-09-11 11:03 AM
Posted To: SIS Forums - Record Structures
Conversation: SFI 40 Total Provisional Adjustment Amount Validation
Subject: SFI 40 Total Provisional Adjustment Amount Validation

 

I need to clarify the rules used when applying the Total Provisional Adjustment figure in determining the net provisional amount in SFI 40 (Invoice Total Record).  We received provisional billing records wherein elements 41, 45 and 53 which are the depressant amounts for ISC, Tax and Handling fee are populated.  The total amount however, of elements 41, 45, and 53 is not reflected into element 63 (Total Provisional Adjustment) but rather it is the amount representing the product of element 12 (Total Gross Value) multiplied by Element 10 (Provisional Adjustment Rate).  It is also worthwhile to note that the totals for elements 41, 45 and 53 do not tie up to the product of element 12 multiplied by element 10.  Per the ISPG, the validation performed for element 63 is:

 

(1)   In case Provisional Adjustment Rate is provided, this should equal to Total Gross Value multiplied by Provisional Adjustment Rate.

(2)   In case individual absorption amounts are provided, the Total Provisional Adjustment Amount should be equal to the sum of the total individual absorption amounts (Fare, ISC, UATP, Tax, HF, Other Commission, VAT) taking into account the individual sign fields.

 

In my example, the data in element 63 passed SIS validation (1) above.  However, it would have failed SIS validation (2).  My question is does the record need to pass only one validation criteria for element 63 --- either (1) or (2) in order for it to be accepted?  Does SIS validation (1) hold a higher hierarchy than SIS validation (2)?  Also, in the example above only the ISC, Tax and HF absorption amounts were populated with positive integers while the absorption amounts for Fare, UATP, Other Commission and VAT were populated with zeroes, would this mean that SIS validation (2) would not have been performed because the four elements did not contain positive integers?

 

Harry H

 
ADVERTISEMENT


Additional information

© International Air Transport Association (IATA) 2014. All rights reserved.