1C
Item master, documents, batches and accounting statuses.
How to work with Chestny Znak in 1C in 2026: marking code export, SBIS/EDI, UTD auto-signing, POS compliance mode, and error control.
Landscape map
Integration works when the physical goods, the 1C document and the code status in Chestny Znak stay in sync.
Item master, documents, batches and accounting statuses.
The state status of the code and the right to the operation.
UPD/UKD, permission regime and withdrawal from circulation.
Exchange errors are visible to the responsible staff; retries run without duplicates.
Chestny Znak integration with 1C is needed not only for exchange architecture, but also for daily operations: accept an UTD with codes, check the KM status, sell goods at checkout, remove a code from circulation, process a return or write-off. If 1C, EDI, GIS MT, the POS, and the warehouse are out of sync on statuses, the goods are physically there, but the operation is blocked or sent for manual review. From July 1, 2026, some product groups will receive new retail and EDI obligations, and the retail environment must be ready to switch to TS PIoT.
So below, we start with the practical workflow in 1C, then move to the architecture of a setup that does not fall apart after the next rule change.
In 2026, not only the product group lists change, but also the way codes are handled in daily work. The official Chestny Znak calendar shows item-level tracking from March 1, 2026 for several groups, and 1C separately highlights new stages for sweets, motor oils, caviar, building materials, cosmetics, household chemicals, and personal care products.
For the question "what to do from July 1, 2026," three practical changes matter: retail code scanning for cosmetics and household chemicals, mandatory EDI/volume-based batch tracking in this group, and the end of the old X-API-KEY scheme for retail checks in favor of TS PIoT.
| Change | What to check in 1C and adjacent systems | Risk without verification |
|---|---|---|
| July 1, 2026: retail write-off from circulation for cosmetics, household chemicals, and personal care products | POS terminal, fiscal data operator, checkout software, and KM scanning at sale | The sale goes through physically, but the write-off information is not sent to the marking system |
| July 1, 2026: EDI and volume-based batch data transfer for this group | UTD/UTD corrections, EDI operator, GTIN, quantity, and incoming document statuses | Receiving and shipment get stuck, and documents are signed without the required data |
| July 1, 2026: retail permissive mode moves to TS PIoT | Is the module installed, is the register ready, and is there a plan to retire the old token | The checkout fails code validation or runs on a scheme that is no longer supported |
| 2026: Item-level tracking for selected groups | Are codes tracked at the unit level, not only by batch or box | Stock is physically present, but the codes do not reconcile with GIS MT |
| 2026: New Marking Stages by Product Group | Are HS codes/OKPD2, GTIN, marked-product flags, and 1C releases up to date? | The item does not fall into the right marking scenario |
The organization is registered in GIS MT, the QES works, the EDI operator is connected, and GTIN, HS/TN VED/OKPD2, marking flags, warehouses, and user roles are filled in 1C.
An incoming UTD arrives through EDI, and the codes are matched against the item master and the actual receipt. If codes are missing or belong to someone else, the document is not signed until it is corrected.
A handheld terminal or WMS records receiving, aggregation, transfer, and shipment. 1C stores the accounting fact, while GIS MT confirms the official status of the code.
For retail sales, the code is scanned at checkout and sent through the POS terminal and fiscal data operator. For write-offs, defects, internal use, or export, a separate document with the removal reason is required.
The responsible person reviews the exchange log, KM statuses, unsigned UTDs, and checkout refusals. Resubmission must be idempotent to avoid duplicates.
The question "how to withdraw marking codes from 1C" usually mixes two different scenarios. The first is retail sales: the cashier scans the Data Matrix code, the checkout verifies the code in Chestny Znak, and after a successful check the receipt is issued and the code is withdrawn from circulation through the cash register/operator of fiscal data. The second covers other reasons for disposal: write-off, defects, internal use, export, repackaging, or product loss. In that case, you need a 1C/accounting-system document with the reason, links to the codes, and submission of data to Chestny Znak.
| Workflow | What 1C does | What IT/accounting checks |
|---|---|---|
| Retail sale | Sends the item and code to the checkout environment and receives the receipt and removal status | POS terminal, fiscal data operator, TS PIoT, validation log, cashier instructions for refusals |
| Customer return | Links the return receipt, code, and item status | Return the code to a valid state, no duplicate by marking code |
| Write-off, defects, internal use | Creates a write-off document with the reason and codes | Write-off reason, business location address, submission to GIS MT, error log |
| Shipment to a counterparty | Sends UTD/UKD through EDI with GTIN, quantity, or codes in the required format | Signature, incoming/outgoing document status, code discrepancies |
If there are many scenarios, it is better to design it from the start integrating 1C with Chestny Znak as a process with logs, alerts, and an error owner, not as a set of manual documents.
In retail, the EDI operator is needed not on its own, but as part of the overall setup:
In practice, the sequence is this: the organization and QES certificate must be ready, the EDI operator must be linked to the legal entity, warehouses and product groups must be set up in accounting, and data exchange with GIS MT must be enabled in the marking service. In Saby/SBIS, they separately check the signature, organization, GLN for transport packages when needed, OMS ID for SUZ, token and retail validation parameters, the code removal method, and user permissions.
First, incoming UPDs must reach 1C with codes and not get lost between the EDI operator and the accounting system. Second, outgoing documents must be sent with the correct data format. Third, the POS setup must see the same codes that are recorded in the accounting system.
If you need the SBIS setup specifically, see the service 1C and SBIS integrations; if the task is broader - 1C EDI and operators are better compared by process, not by name.
Auto-signing is useful only where control is clear: which documents may be signed automatically, who handles exceptions, and where it is visible that the UTD is stuck. The basic setup is this: the qualified electronic signature and permissions are configured for the organization, outbound UTDs are checked for details and codes, then a scheduled job sends the document to the EDI operator, and the log shows the statuses "created", "signed", "sent", "accepted", "rejected".
| Area | What to automate | What must not be handed over without control |
|---|---|---|
| Outgoing UTD | Generation, field validation, signing, and scheduled sending | Documents with discrepancies in codes, price, counterparty, or warehouse |
| Incoming UTD | Import, code matching, notify the responsible person | Auto-signing without matching actual receipt |
| UTD corrections and amendments | Approval workflow and resubmission | Corrections without justification or linkage to the source document |
| SLA for documents | Alert for unsigned and rejected documents | Stuck UTDs that employees bypass with manual actions |
For the business process, the important thing is not the "sign automatically" button, but the procedure: who is allowed to auto-sign, which checks are mandatory before sending, and who resolves the error before shipment is blocked.
Approval mode works before the receipt is issued: the cashier scans the marking code, the POS software sends it to GIS MT for verification, the receipt is issued if the check succeeds, and the register shows an error if it is blocked. In the 1C landscape, this must be checked beyond the register itself: you need the current cash register driver, support for the required fiscal data format, product group settings, CDN/module availability, a verification log, and cashier instructions.
| Checkout situation | What the cashier does | What IT/the responsible person does |
|---|---|---|
| Code approved | Sells the item in the usual way | Confirms that the receipt was sent and the code was removed |
| Code not found, invalid, or already withdrawn | Does not process the receipt and puts the item on hold | Checks the marking code status, supplier UTD, and operation permission |
| No response from GIS MT/module | Operates according to the approved offline/timeout procedure | Checks service availability, the cash register driver, TS PIoT/CDN, and the log |
| Frequent rejections by product group | Escalates the issue instead of using a manual workaround | Verifies marking attributes, GTIN, 1C release, POS software, and group rules |
Main principle:
In the working loop 1C holds the item master, batches, movement documents, code statuses and the link to source operations. The other systems cover their own areas: EDI transmits the UPD document, GIS MT stores the code state, SUZ issues codes, the cash register retires goods from circulation, scanners and WMS record actual movement.
| System or layer | What it is responsible for | What to monitor |
|---|---|---|
| 1C ERP / Trade Management / Retail / Accounting | Item master, documents, batches, code statuses, accounting and warehouse records | Exchange errors, duplicate documents, mismatch between marking code and item master |
| EDI | UPD, UKD, discrepancy reports, code transfer between counterparties | Documents without codes, unsigned incoming documents, overdue responses |
| GIS MT / Chestny Znak | State status of the code: emission, entry into circulation, circulation, retirement, return | Codes are not yours, not found, already retired or awaiting confirmation |
| SUZ | Ordering and receiving marking codes | Tokens, OMSID, code balance, emission errors |
| POS / OFD / TS PIoT | Verification and retirement from circulation at retail sale | Verification failures, service downtime, offline mode |
| TSD / WMS / printers | Actual scanning, aggregation, label printing | DataMatrix print quality, duplicate scans, lost cases and pallets |
| Integration layer | API, queues, redelivery, logs, idempotency | Accumulating errors, uncontrolled resending, no trace id |
Prepare the legal and accounting setup: registration in Chestny Znak, qualified electronic signature, EDI operator, user roles, and managers responsible for product groups.
Clean up master data: item master, GTIN, HS code/OKPD2, marking attributes, units of measure, packaging, and aggregation rules.
Set up integrations: 1C - EDI, 1C - Chestny Znak/SUZ, 1C - cash registers, 1C - handheld terminals/WMS, exchange logs, and error notifications.
Run a test cycle: code order, printing, commissioning, receiving, shipment, retail sale, return, and write-off.
Lock in operations: an update policy, error owners, an SLA for clearing stuck documents and release control for 1C/POS/data terminals.
| Business role | Main scenario | What to automate in 1C | Where it breaks most often |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Ordering marking codes, printing, applying, aggregation, entry into circulation | Emission order, label printing, marking goods in the IS MP system, writing off defects | GTIN, print quality, defective or unused codes |
| Importer | Obtaining codes before import and putting them into circulation after customs procedures | Linking item master, codes and receiving documents | Codes not matching the goods and document delays |
| Wholesale and warehouse | UPD receiving, code matching, shipment assembly, transfer via EDI | Scanning on receipt/shipment, automatic import of marking codes from UPD | UPD without codes, extra or foreign codes in stock |
| Retail | Permit mode and retirement from circulation at the register | Marking code verification, exchange with cash registers/OFD, returns and correction receipts | POS software is not ready, no TS PIoT, the code fails validation |
| Accounting and IT | Control of documents, discrepancies and exchange errors | Logs, reports, notifications, resending without duplicates | No incident owner, errors pile up for weeks |
| Error | Operational symptom | Reason | What to do |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPD arrived without codes | Receiving stalls, the goods cannot be sold correctly | The supplier did not send the marking code, or the document is not matched | Do not sign until fixed, file a discrepancy report, set up inbound control |
| Code not found or not yours | 1C sees the goods, GIS MT does not confirm the right to the operation | The code belongs to another owner, has already been retired or was never put into circulation | Check the status before shipment, require a valid document from the supplier |
| Duplicate marking codes | The document is not sent or gets rejected | Rescanning, manual entry, resending the UPD | Block manual entry without a role, enable duplicate checks and idempotent exchange |
| Poor DataMatrix print quality | Scanner cannot read the label | Printer, consumables, size, damage during application | Test printing, log defects, write off unused codes |
| The return was not posted in the system | The goods came back physically, but the code did not return to the right status | The return was processed only at the warehouse or the cash register | Process the return with a valid document, correction document (UKD) or return receipt |
| Exchange errors are not investigated | Documents get stuck, staff resort to workaround operations | No monitoring and no incident owner | Set up a log, alerts, a resolution SLA, trace id and resending |
| Verification | What must be ready |
|---|---|
| Master Data | GTIN, HS code/OKPD2, marking attributes, packaging, units of measure |
| EDI | The operator is connected, UPD/UKD go through, inbound documents are tracked against deadlines |
| SUZ and GIS MT | OMSID, tokens, organizations and warehouses linked; exchange verified on test operations |
| POS and TS PIoT | POS, OFD, POS software and TS PIoT support the current permit-based mode |
| Scanning | TSD, WMS, printers and Data Matrix quality verified on real packaging |
| Monitoring | Exchange errors, duplicates, stuck documents and marking code statuses are visible to the responsible staff |
| Operations | There is an update procedure, an incident owner and a process for manually handling exceptions |
If gaps remain after the checklist - assess your 1C readiness for product marking: we will review your setup and show what to resolve before going live.
Case
1C + Chestny Znak
We will assemble and verify the full marking lifecycle: code issuance, UPDs with codes, receiving, sales, returns, write-offs, POS approval mode, and an error log. The result is a clear setup with no duplicates, no manual workarounds, and no dependence on a single developer.
A bad option is to hard-code all marking logic into 1C customizations without boundaries.
Then any change to a rule, cash register, WMS, EDI or product group becomes a risk for the whole system.
A more resilient approach is to keep 1C as the accounting hub and move data exchanges into a loosely coupled loop: API, a queue or ESB, explicit contracts, an event log, redelivery, idempotency and monitoring.
This makes it easier to update separate parts, hand support to another team, and avoid keeping the business dependent on a single developer.
For KT.Team this is a matter of principle: 1C must be a strong accounting system within a heterogeneous landscape, not the single platform through which every business change has to pass.
FAQ
First determine the write-off reason. For retail sales, the code is written off through the register: the DataMatrix is scanned, verified in GIS MT, the receipt is issued on the cash register, and the data is sent through the OFD. For write-off, defects, internal use, export, or repackaging, a separate write-off document is needed in 1C/the accounting system with the reason and codes, followed by submission of the data to GIS MT.
Check the organization, qualified e-signature, EDI operator, user permissions, warehouses, product groups, and integration with GIS MT. In Saby, configure the certificate, organization, GIS MT settings, token/retail verification settings, OMS ID when working with SUZ, and the code write-off method. In 1C, it is important that UTDs with codes, document statuses, and cash register operations stay aligned across systems.
Yes, but only after checking the details, marking codes, and signing rights. Without a policy, auto-signing speeds up errors, not the process: the UTD is sent with incorrect codes, gets stuck with the EDI operator, or comes back rejected. You need rules for which documents are signed automatically, which go for manual review, and who handles exceptions.
For cosmetics, household chemicals, and personal care products, this date starts mandatory reporting of retail sales through KKT, EDI for shipment and receipt, and a volume-based batch format for circulation and part of the write-offs from circulation. For retail, the move to TS PIoT permissive mode is also critical: the old X-API-KEY must be replaced.
For standard scenarios a current 1C release, configured EDI and enabled marking functionality are often enough. Custom development appears when there is a WMS, non-standard aggregation, complex packaging, several legal entities, special warehouse rules or monitoring requirements.
Because the accounting fact in 1C and the code status in GIS MT can diverge. The code may not be in circulation, belong to another participant, have already been retired, or be awaiting document confirmation.
You need to run the full cycle on real scenarios: issuance, printing, introduction, receipt, shipment, sale, return, write-off, exchange error, and resubmission without duplicates. One successfully sent document does not prove the environment is ready.
Checked on: 02.07.2026