This looks less like a simple failure to provide documents, and more like a case stuck in a document-rule loop.
The seller appears to be providing the genuine original invoice and matching bank statement for the items in question, but Amazon is rejecting the invoice because it is older than 365 days before 10/05/2024. If the inventory was actually purchased in March 2023, that creates an obvious contradiction: the seller cannot produce a newer historical invoice for stock that was bought earlier.
So the key issue may not be whether documents exist, but what type of proof Amazon is actually asking for. There is a big difference between:
proof of the original inventory tied to the violation, and
proof of current sourcing dated within the last 365 days
At the moment, the wording seems to blur those together. That is why the seller is stuck replying to something that may be impossible as written.
The most useful evidence here is the exact wording of the request, the March 2023 supplier invoice, the matching bank transaction, and any notice that identifies the affected ASINs and violation date. That would help show whether this is an age-of-invoice rejection, or whether Amazon is really asking for a newer supply-chain document instead.
For moderators, the key question is whether the review team wants original purchase evidence for the historical inventory involved, or current sourcing evidence within 365 days. Without that distinction, the seller cannot realistically provide the “correct” document set.
From the outside, this does not look like a seller refusing to comply. It looks more like the document requirement itself has become internally inconsistent.