As a user of Electronic Fiscal Device (EFD), you are responsible for ensuring that your POS is compatible with the External or Virtual SDC so that it can communicate with SDC of your choice. SDC compatible means that POS has equal connectivity settings which must be adjusted to meet manufacturer’s installation requirements. MCR is provider of Virtual SDC (V–SDC) which requires Internet connection to produce a transaction. External SDC (E–SDC) is produced by vendor from the list.
Listed here are information about the products that have met technical requirements for obtaining certificate to become POS and E–SDC accredited products. With this list we issue a confirmation of accreditation that recognises the compatibility of the POS with SDC giving the fact that physical interfaces are compatible (ask suppliers for details).
Be advised that any change made to a accredited product voids its accreditation.
The accreditation is only applicable to the product in the configuration that has been evaluated by the Ministry of Revenue and Customs.
The Commissioner must accredit each POS and E-SDC supplied by suppliers or developed by developers, which is later installed and implemented by a taxpayer. This is done to ensure their operation in accordance with the EFD regulations.
The evaluation process consists of an administrative review and a technical review of the working processes of the applicant’s POS and E-SDC together as an EFD, or a POS or E-SDC as separate components.
During the administrative review, the Commissioner evaluates documentation by cross-examining the functionality stated in the user manual and other documentation to ensure that the implemented functions operate as described.During the technical review, the Commissioner identifies whether there are any of the following types of issues:
1. Non-compliance: a deviation from the expected output, must be solved by the applicant;
2. Bug: represents a failure, flow or fault in software that produces incorrect or unexpected results, must be solved by the applicant;
3. Doubt: represents uncertainty due to possible misinterpretation and is resolved by investigation and clarification from the applicant;
4. Observation: represents minor faults, mainly in documentation or sample appearance; these issues shall contain sub-class mandatory or voluntary which will reflect the applicant’s level of obligation to solve;
5. Improvement: represents a proposal to improve functionality, which the applicant may solve or not.
All issues that are non-compliance, bugs, doubts and observations with a mandatory sub-class must be solved before the accreditation is granted.After the issues are resolved and finalized to the satisfaction of the Commissioner and the applicant, the Commissioner writes the accreditation report describing the evaluation process and the outcome of the process and making recommendations for or against the accreditation