[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Our last case for argument today is 24-1158, Habas-Sinai versus Tibi-Godslar.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we have three counsel who would like to sit at the response table.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Maybe we use one of, Ms.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
Noonan has consented to let us use one of her chairs.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
This case is about how commerce

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
compare Habash's U.S.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
sales price to Habash's home market sales prices.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
So, Counsel, unless I'm mistaken, this whole case is about should have been using U.S.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
dollars earlier.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
And I have no doubt that there is a customary practice in commerce to use U.S.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
dollars.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
Does that also sound correct?

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:01:06] Speaker 00:
When the transactions are in U.S.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
currency.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
Yet the problem here is, if I understand the facts right, and you're going to correct me if I don't, the problem here is commerce didn't feel that it could do that because your sales weren't keyed to specific dates during which it could ascertain the exchange rate.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
Exchange rate for foreign currency flourishes quite a bit up and down in a given month even.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
And my understanding is unlike other cases where they could key in the exact dates of sales,

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
And then they could say, OK, what was the exchange rate on that day?

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
Then they convert it, and then they can do the whole thing in US dollars.

[00:01:41] Speaker 03:
But my understanding is they said, here, the problem is you didn't provide or enough information wasn't provided as to the specific sales dates.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
So they couldn't do that monetary conversion to change lira into US dollars.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
So they had to do it in lira.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
what I understand this case to be about?

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
I believe that's their argument, Your Honor, but I disagree that that's what the record shows.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
What we show on the record is that at the time of invoicing in Turkey, and that is a price that has been negotiated in US dollars and it's customary in Turkey to do these transactions in US dollars, which is

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
all over this record and not disputed.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
I don't think commerce disputes that.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
I don't think commerce disputes that customarily they would do this in U.S.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
dollars.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
I think that they, I think their argument is in this case the information sufficient to achieve that was not present.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
As an accounting matter in Turkey, the U.S.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
dollar price must be, it must be invoiced in the home market in Turkish lira.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
And that, and so when it goes into the financial statement and the books and records of the Turkish respondent,

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
It is in Turkish lira.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
So it doesn't matter what commerce thinks the exchange rate should have been.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
What commerce does agree is that the amount that was recorded for this particular invoice in Turkish lira, where on the invoice it has the US dollar unit value, that amount in Turkish lira went into our financial statements, tied into our sales revenue, and commerce was completely satisfied that we had reported all of our sales

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
They just there's just that extra step of getting that Turkish lira price that was on the invoice to the US dollar price and there's no requirement under Turkish gap to be in fact they're not even allowed.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
You can see in our financial statement on appendix.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
001386.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
It says, the company is established in Turkey.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
It maintains its books and accounts and prepares a statutory financial statement in Turkish lira in accordance with Turkish commercial code tax legislation and the uniform chart of accounts issued by the Ministry of Finance.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
So there's only one sale in the US.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
That sale is on August 2, 2018.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
Commerce in its normal practice to do its fair comparison looks at the home market sales for the month of August 2018.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
We have on the record just the unbelievably unusual exchange rate fluctuations that occurred.

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
And simply by having the conversion from the US dollar price, which was negotiated with Habas's customer, translated into Turkish lira on the invoice in Turkey,

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
and then converted back to U.S.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
dollars at the U.S.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
August 2, 2018 date of sale, that is the only reason why this company has a margin.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
But Commerce made a fact-finding, and I've got to give a lot of deference in these scenarios, Commerce made a fact-finding that the U.S.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
dollar price could not be reconciled because Habas didn't know the payment date of each invoice, and thus not the exchange rate that would be in effect on that date.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
What do I do with that?

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
I mean, that doesn't feel like something I can really question.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I believe we can, because we explained in our Section B questionnaire response that Hibosh does not, in its normal course of business, they have an open account system.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
So the customer is paying kind of on a rolling basis.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
It's not tied in their system to direct invoices.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
And that is why we provided the aged accounts receivable

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
date of payment in the record, and Congress never asked anything about that.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
They never said, tell us more about why you can't do that or tell us more about this particular transaction.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
And Congress does have an obligation, if they believe there's a deficiency on the record, to give the respondent a chance to provide more information.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
They did not do that for this particular transaction.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
Well, when you say if they think there's a deficiency in the record, they have to give you an obligation,

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
I don't know that this falls into that category.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
This isn't a deficiency in the record.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
This is just a question of, well, let's look at this record.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
Can I use US dollars or can I use Lira?

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
And ultimately, they're like, well, we can use Lira.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
We can't really use US dollars because we don't have specific states linked to these payments.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
And the exchange rate was fluctuating wildly.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
So we can't do that.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
But what Congress did have on the record and that this tied into the accounting system is,

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
At the date of invoice for the only, there's only one example of a home market sale, which is, you know, kind of in the normal course unless commerce asks or comes and verifies.

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
There's only one example of a home market sale, and we see on that invoice on the record the US dollar unit price, the exact exchange rate that was used, which could be validated, and how that translates into the Turkish currency.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
And then that Turkish currency amount goes into the financial statements and into the sales revenue.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
sales revenue recognition is, of course, when the sale is made, not when payment is made.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
And then we also have on the record evidence that this customer makes payments in U.S.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
dollars.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
So it is unfortunate that, you know,

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
And it's unfortunate for our dumping purposes that in their normal course of business, they have an open account and the customer just has these rolling payments coming in.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
But to have such a distortive effect on a very, and the record does at least show all of the unbelievable fluctuations in the exchange rate.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
In the month of August 2018, that was when President Trump had imposed the extra 25% section 232 tariffs on Turkey.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
So the market went wild.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
It's not a fair comparison.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
What is our standard of review for this issue?

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
Substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
So if there's substantial evidence for commerce to have chosen to use the lira rather than the US dollar amount, that's it, right?

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
That would be it, but I really do not believe there's substantial evidence, Your Honor.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
And the statute does require a fair comparison between the home market price and the US price.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
Can you succinctly explain why you believe there's not substantial evidence?

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
Because we showed that the price was negotiated in U.S.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
dollars, and that is in the normal course of business in the home market in Turkey, these sales are done in U.S.

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
dollars, that the prior administrative review in this exact hot rolled steel investigation prior segment, commerce accepted the use of U.S.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
dollars and even acknowledged that doing a currency conversion back and forth would be distortive.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
And so yes, of course, we have to show it in a Turkish lira amount.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
That's what Turkish law requires under the general accounting principles.

[00:08:30] Speaker 05:
But we show that that amount is... You don't have to accept payments on the ruling basis you do, which is also part of the problem, right?

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
That is a fact of how this company does business that I think has confused the record, Your Honor, yes.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
But that is how they do business.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
And that is acceptable.

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
Well, sometimes we get cases where companies do business and keep their records in a way that requires commerce to do alternative methodologies to come up with all of the different figures they do.

[00:08:58] Speaker 05:
And you can't blame commerce.

[00:09:01] Speaker 05:
for business choices your client makes.

[00:09:04] Speaker 05:
What I hear you saying is you disagree with methodology.

[00:09:09] Speaker 05:
I don't hear you saying commerce's methodology was incorrect as a matter of law or that there's not evidence in the record for what commerce came up with.

[00:09:20] Speaker 05:
You talk about why your methodology was correct and supported by substantial evidence.

[00:09:25] Speaker 05:
What specifically about commerce's methodology lacks substantial evidence?

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, we would say that under the precedent, and I know it's not binding, but under what has typically happened with commerce in this hot world case, commerce has used the U.S.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
dollar price, for example, quoting from H4... Well, I understand that, but the commerce can...

[00:09:46] Speaker 05:
can change its mind if it has a reason to, and I think it gave a reason here.

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
So what I'm trying to get at is, let's just assume that we agree that it was okay for them to do all this conversion stuff.

[00:09:59] Speaker 05:
Is that basically the end of your argument, or do you say even if it was okay to do them, there's still not evidence to support their methodology and the number they came up with?

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
I'm afraid I'd have to say if you think that they had evidence to do it that I can't, I have nothing else to say about that.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
But I'll just.

[00:10:17] Speaker 05:
So there's evidence to support their methodology.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, from the perspective that they're looking at that Turkish lira price on the invoice and saying game over.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
But again, we're looking at the totality of the evidence on the record and taking into account, not reweighing it, I'm not saying to reweigh it, but I'm just saying looking at the totality of the record.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
It's, we believe the US dollar price was the fair comparison to make under the statute.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
Let's hear from Ms.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
Bond, please.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
An independent basis to resolve this case is the reconciliation concern that was just being discussed.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
Only the Turkish lira values on the invoices could be reconciled with the accounting, with Habash's financial statements, and commerce can only rely on accurate information.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
that can be reconciled.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
Commerce doesn't just take a collection of invoices or a collection of sales data and take that at face value.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
It has to ensure that at the end of the day to achieve an accurate dumping margin that the amounts actually reconcile the financial statement.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
So that's what commerce did here.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
That's a long-standing practice.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
There's been no claim that in

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
doing the sales reconciliation or relying on reconciled data that commerce departed in any way from prior cases?

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
Well, I mean, in most cases like this, it seems that the common practice is to find a way to do a conversion and use U.S.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
dollars.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
Isn't that fair?

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
So that's point two.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
Of course, I'll answer the question.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
So the reconciliation is a sufficient basis to resolve it because that has not been a problem in the prior cases.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
In the prior cases, the dollar value

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
There was no concern that the dollar values did not reconcile.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
So that's separate and sufficient here.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
The second point to get to your Honor's question is the prior cases don't say there's a custom of using dollar values.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
What happens is a factual question.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
So there are the similarity, I suppose, between this case and the case that Ms.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
Newton referenced, the 2016 to 2017 review of the same order.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Like this case, that case involved invoices from the respondent that had a dollar unit value and a Turkish lira unit value, both on the invoice.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
And all that shows, that presents the factual question of which of those two values on the invoice controls the agreement between the parties for what will actually be paid.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
Because, of course, this is in Turkey at the time during both periods, there was a period of high inflation, changes in the currency between the, so there could be changes in the currency between the date of the invoice and the date of the payment.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
So in that context, commerce asks the question, which of those two prices is the actual final price?

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
And in this case,

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
at pages 42 to 43 of the appendix, commerce answered, the Turkish lira price is the final price that's agreed between the parties.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
And if that wasn't true, the Turkish lira values wouldn't have reconciled with the payments that were ultimately received.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
So what's different ultimately is a different financial practice between the respondent in this case and the respondent in the prior case, because in the prior case,

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
It was the dollars.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
The dollar value on the invoice controlled the amount actually paid.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
Whereas in this case, as shown by the sample sales, the dollar values had no connection with the price ultimately paid.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
government at that point.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
So if you know that what was actually paid was the Turkish lira number and you know the date upon which that payment occurred, why don't you just do the exchange rate as of that date and figure out how that converts into US dollars?

[00:14:02] Speaker 01:
Well, a few responses.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
Noon is correct, and I think the record is clear, that Habash could not identify the date of payment linked to the correct invoice.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
So the total amount of payments in Lira matched the total amount charged on the invoices.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
So that's how the record... You just don't know upon which dates this

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
Right, you can't connect the date of payment with the date of the invoice, I think is the concern here.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
So therefore you can't connect the invoice date with the payment.

[00:14:36] Speaker 05:
And because of the fluctuations in the inflation, there could be a big difference between

[00:14:45] Speaker 05:
the value or the lira on the invoice date and on the payment date.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
And that's why perhaps some other companies like The Respondent in the prior review, they actually did, their customers had to pay on the payment date the US dollar amount.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
That was often different than the lira amount on the invoice.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
So the lira amounts didn't match there.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
The dollar values matched the ultimate price paid.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
In this case, we have to have different facts.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
The facts are in this case that the lira prices on the invoice date

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
match the payments that were ultimately received.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
Did Commerce have any obligation to go back to an appellant in Havasini circumstances and say this record doesn't allow us to match up these dates?

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
Can you provide additional information that would, you know, sort of fill that gap?

[00:15:37] Speaker 01:
So no, first answer is no and the second answer is commerce did it anyway.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
No, commerce didn't have an obligation.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
The information reconciled.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
Commerce didn't rely on facts available.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
There was no need to resort to that.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
The question is which information is accurate that was provided.

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
So Habash provided accurate information.

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
It was the Lira values in its statements.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
That's what reconciled, that's what Commerce used.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
Commerce did ask a follow-up question questionnaire, I think it's at appendix page 3108, and Commerce asked for additional payment, there's some confidential data there, but Commerce asked for additional payment documentation

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
for certain home market invoices.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
And then Habash responded by saying, by providing some corrections but acknowledging also I think at page, appendix page 1628, they don't have the payment specific dates or exchange rates.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
So Commerce did follow up and we also addressed this in our response brief I believe at page 23, note 6.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
So basically, Commerce did follow up and ask some follow up questions.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
Habash wasn't able to provide the information.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
But in a case like this one where Commerce isn't applying facts available, they're not making any inferences, they're relying on the information, the books and records that Habash submitted.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
The interested parties have the burden to develop the record before commerce.

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
Commerce issues the questionnaires, interested parties provide responses, commerce acts based on the facts that are provided in the record.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
So to sum up counsel, it sounds like the approach used by commerce was very much dependent on the record keeping and the business practices of the party.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
And it's an intensely factual question.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
So the two independent bases here are only one set of data was reliable and accurate.

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
And as Habash stated in its opening brief, commerce does have an obligation to compute dumping margins as accurately as possible.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
The only information they could use that was accurate and reliable were the Sorkish Lira values.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
And separately, commerce explicitly found at pages 42 to 43, the Lira price was the final price between the parties.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
That's a factual assessment about the agreement here.

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
This record stands alone.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
So we would ask the court to affirm.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
Mr. Schneiderman, do you have anything different to add?

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
I don't want to really have a repeat of the same information.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, Dan Schneiderman.

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think I can be brief.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
We certainly agree with the government that Habas's failure to reconcile on a US dollar basis is dispositive.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
But I do want to push back a little bit, Your Honor, on this assertion that the Congress has a preference for using dollar values.

[00:18:25] Speaker 04:
We're talking about home market transactions, which typically are stated in the local currency.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
When a respondent keeps its records in both US dollars and the local currency, and where both currencies appear on the invoice, as in this case, commerce's established practice is to use the currency, what they call the controlling currency.

[00:18:48] Speaker 04:
And what I mean by that, it's not so much the currency that appears on the invoice, because both appear on the invoice.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
It's not even the currency in which payment is made.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
It's the currency that controls the amount that's going to be owed at the time of payment.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
And what evidence do you have about this?

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
Well, that actually occurred in the 2019 hot rolled case that Ms.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
Nunez was referring to.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, but you just suggested that there is a typical practice by commerce.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
Now, you're not commerce, you're the private sector person.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
So commerce is not standing here telling me it's their typical practice and her time is done.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
So if you're going to tell me there's a standard practice in place, I would expect you to cite me to evidence that demonstrates the standard practice, because I'm not just going to believe you.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
Well, then I would just say, Your Honor, to the hot rolled from Turkey, the previous review, the 2016 to 2017 review, June 21st, 2019, where Commerce said that they're using the U.S.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
dollar price for, the respond in that case was Kala Gaklu, because the U.S.

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
dollar price controls the ultimate TL amount paid by the home market customers.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
In other words, the customers were actually paying in Turkish lira, but it was a Turkish lira equivalent of a dollar amount paid.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
Look, in this case, the numbers are confidential, so I won't get into them.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
But if I could perhaps illustrate with sort of a simple example.

[00:19:59] Speaker 05:
Does any of this matter to the actual determination in this case of whether substantial evidence supports commerce's determination?

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, at the end of the day, because the numbers didn't reconcile, I don't think it matters.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
But I think it's helpful because I think that if I hear Habas's argument, they're saying.

[00:20:15] Speaker 05:
You worry about future cases because you represent clients in this area.

[00:20:18] Speaker 05:
But we're not deciding future cases.

[00:20:20] Speaker 05:
We're deciding this case.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
If I could, Your Honor, I think it would be helpful just to sort of illustrate this point about what it means to be the controlling currency.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
So if I get in, if I'm going to... Do you think it would be helpful?

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
I don't think we need that.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:20:37] Speaker ?:
Snowden.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
Just a few brief points in rebuttal.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
First, on the reconciliation to the audited financial statement issue, which is why the home market sales were found to be reported completely, the U.S.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
sales are also translated into Turkish lira.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
That is everything in the audited financial statement for the sales revenue must be reported in Turkish lira for a Turkish company.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
So the fact that

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
It's not some sort of big surprise that the home market sales are converted from US dollars to Turkish lira, but everyone's ignoring the fact that the US sales are also reported in Turkish lira.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
Second, we still strongly want to make the point that the Turkish lira price that's in our books and records is the converted US dollar price as of the date of sale in the home market on the invoice.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
It's not some future payment date of when the payment came in.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
So that is the amount that the customer must pay to settle up their account at the date of sale.

[00:21:48] Speaker 05:
And our whole point is an August 2nd, 2018 US sale in US dollars being compared to... I thought their point was that they can't confirm that because of the fluctuations in currency between the date of sale and the actual date of payment if it was made in lira may mean that it was actually less than the sale price.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
That might be their argument, Your Honor, but our point is why do we have to convert?

[00:22:17] Speaker 05:
Did you prove that the date of sale price, which you say is the actual price paid, wait, are you saying the date of sale price was actually paid even though it's paid sometime later, the actual specific amount?

[00:22:33] Speaker 05:
I feel like that that's what they're saying that they can't confirm.

[00:22:36] Speaker 05:
And that's why they needed to do their methodology here.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
We're saying that we agree that the Turkish lira equivalent of the US dollar amount that was negotiated with the customer is set at the date of invoicing.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
And that's the amount that goes into our books and records in terms of when the payment was paid later.

[00:22:55] Speaker 05:
So could that effectively mean that even though that was the sales price recorded, the actual price paid was less?

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
The actual pricing is paid in U.S.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
dollars.

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
So then when you record it, when you reconvert it.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
But this is our whole point, Your Honor.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
It's too much conversions when you have a U.S.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
dollar price on the record of what the home market customer agreed to pay.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
They agreed to pay a U.S.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
dollar price.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
It gets converted in the Turkish home market to the Turkish lira price.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
And it's not fair, it's not a fair comparison under the statute to have, convert to Turkish lira and then convert back to the US dollar price on the exchange rate of the US sale, not the Turkish sale.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
Okay, I can see it's been a long morning, but thank you for your time.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
I thank all councils of cases taken under submission.