If anyone should require operator assistance during today's conference, please press star zero from your telephone keypad. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I'll now turn the conference over to Megan Cochard, in Investor Relations. Megan, you may begin. Thank you, Rob. Good morning or evening, everyone. Welcome to Novelis's first quarter fiscal year 2026 earnings conference call. Hosting our call today is Steve Fisher, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dev Ahuja, our Chief Financial Officer. Following the presentation, the call will be open to analysts and investors for questions. This conference call is being broadcast on the internet at novelis.com in the Investors section. A replay of this call will also be available on our website. Before I turn the call over to Steve, let me remind you that today's earnings release and presentation include forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors identified in the release and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today's presentation also includes certain Non-GAAP measurements. Reconciliation of these measurements is provided in the financial statements included with our earnings release and the appendix of our presentation. I'll turn the call over to Steve. Thanks, Megan. Good morning or evening, everyone, thanks for joining us today. Our business has demonstrated resilience in a challenging environment, delivering 1% growth in total shipments. Demand in our largest product end market, beverage packaging, continues to be very strong, driving higher can shipments both sequentially and year-over-year, while demand across our other end markets remains relatively stable in a challenging economic environment. While overall scrap prices are trending from stable to slightly lower at this time, higher scrap prices versus the prior year's historically favorable levels, along with less favorable product mix and higher tariff costs, negatively impacted financial performance in the quarter. However, we are committed to defending and improving our margins. On the tariff front, we are diligently working through mitigation strategies, including advocacy for tariff exemptions, customer pass-throughs, and opportunities to produce more in the U.S. to begin offsetting tariff impact in the second half of this fiscal year. In addition, we previously announced a three-year, $300 million cost reduction program. We have already implemented a round of organization redesign, footprint rationalization, and process improvement actions under this program to drive simplification and efficiencies. Based on accelerated progress to date, we now expect to exceed our original interim fiscal year 2026 exit rate target of approximately $75 million to over $100 million by the end of this fiscal year. We also seek to lead the industry in first-mover investments to capture growing market opportunities and support our vision to advance aluminum as the material choice for circular solutions. We continue to make great progress with construction of our U.S. greenfield rolling and recycling plant in Bay Minette, and this project remains on track. We also will continue to ramp up casting production at two recycling centers that were commissioned in late fiscal 2025, one in Ulsan, South Korea, and the other in Guthrie, Kentucky, in the U.S. Meanwhile, in Q1, we began commissioning a hot mill development investment at our Logan joint venture plant in the U.S. We expect this hot mill upgrade will unlock approximately 80 KT of hot mill capacity when the ramp-up phase is complete. Let's turn the call over to Dev for a more detailed review of our financial results. Thank you, Steve, and good morning or good evening. Let's turn to slide five and our Q1 financial highlights compared to the prior year period. Net sales increased 13% to $4.7 billion, primarily driven by higher average aluminum prices and a 1% increase in total raw product shipments to 963 kilotons. Higher beverage packaging shipments on robust global demand were partially offset by lower automotive and specialty shipments. Adjusted EBITDA decreased 17% year-over-year to $416 million in the first quarter. The Q1 fiscal year 2026 result indicates or includes a net negative tariff impact of $28 million. Adjusted EBITDA per ton was $432. Net income attributable to our common shareholder was down 36% to $96 million, primarily driven by lower operating performance and restructuring charges, partially offset by favorable metal price lag and Sears flood-related charges in the prior year period. Net income excluding these, as well as other special items, decreased 43% year-over-year in Q1 to $116 million. Let's turn to the Adjusted EBITDA bridge for Q1 on slide six. The impact of higher total FRP shipments resulted in a $15 million EBITDA contribution from volume. Price and mix was a negative $7 million, as higher contracted pricing was offset by less favorable product mix. While higher tariff costs were a headwind versus the prior year, the largest factor driving increased operating costs this year was mainly the higher scrap prices compared to the prior year. Beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2025, we saw a rapid change in global scrap markets, which created margin pressure on our business. While we have seen a bit of easing in scrap prices in some regions sequentially, they remain elevated compared to historical levels. Lastly, we had some favorability from foreign exchange, mainly coming from the stronger euro. Let's look at Q1 performance year-over-year by segment, beginning on slide seven. North America shipments were flat year-over-year, as higher beverage packaging shipments were offset by lower automotive and specialty shipments. Adjusted EBITDA declined 27%, primarily due to higher scrap prices, increased tariffs, and unfavorable product mix, partially offset by higher product pricing. In Europe, shipments were also in line with the prior year, as higher shipments to the beverage packaging market were offset by lower automotive and aerospace volumes. Adjusted EBITDA was down 22%, primarily driven by lower metal benefit from higher scrap prices and a lower local market premium that impacted the scrap spread, as well as an unfavorable product mix. These factors were partially offset by favorable foreign currency translation. Turning to the next slide, Asia shipments hit a record high, up 11% year-over-year, driven by higher beverage packaging and aerospace shipments, partially offset by lower shipments of automotive and specialty products. Adjusted EBITDA increased 1%, as higher volume benefits were partially offset by less favorable product mix and higher scrap prices compared to the prior year. In South America, total shipments were up 1%, as higher beverage packaging shipments were mostly offset by lower specialty shipments. Adjusted EBITDA was down 10%, primarily due to higher scrap prices, partially offset by favorable product mix. Our financial results clearly have seen the pressure of higher scrap prices compared to the historically favorable levels of the prior several years. Novelis has been working on a number of strategic initiatives to protect recycling profitability over time, including digital advancements to sort and consume more sources of scrap and ongoing advocacy to increase recycling rates. In addition, we also are working to build more resiliency in the business by driving operating efficiency, portfolio optimization, and cost reduction initiatives to reduce our fixed cost base and maintain our industry-leading returns. Earlier this year, we set a minimum cost-out target of $300 million to be achieved by the end of fiscal 2028, with an interim target to exit fiscal year 2026 at a $75 million savings run rate. Through operational efficiency, footprint rationalization, and SG&A streamlining actions already implemented, we are ahead of this goal and now expect to exit this fiscal year at a run rate savings in excess of $100 million. These actions include a focus on running one of our two automotive finishing lines in China at full capacity and idling the other to reduce costs while we monitor market conditions for improvement. We also have now ceased operations at our Fairmont and Richmond specialty plants in North America. On the SG&A side, we are designing a new end-to-end operating model for SG&A processes and activities. The model is creating a leaner organizational structure that leverages centers of expertise and technology to reduce overlap and streamline processes. We continue to target achieving over $300 million in total run rate savings by the end of fiscal 2028 through these and additional efficiency activities still to be implemented. In Q1, we recognized $83 million of restructuring costs associated with this efficiency program, including $65 million of non-cash accelerated depreciation related to footprint rationalization. We believe these actions will drive simplification, better leverage technology and automation to gain efficiency, and free up resources to further invest. Let's turn to cash flow on slide 10. Q1 Adjusted Free Cash Flow is an outflow of $295 million, compared to the prior year outflow of $280 million, mainly due to lower Adjusted EBITDA and higher capital expenditures, partially offset by favorable metal price lag. Capital expenditures totaled $386 million, primarily to support planned strategic investments underway. We ended the first quarter with a net leverage ratio of 3.2x and liquidity of $3 billion. We continue to manage a prudent balance sheet, guided by a balanced capital allocation framework that allows for capital investment while managing net leverage and liquidity.... During the first quarter, we returned $35 million to our shareholder. Additionally, in June, we issued $400 million of new tax-exempt bonds. For fiscal 2026, we continue to expect total capital expenditures to be in the range of $1.9 billion-$2.2 billion, including approximately $300 million for maintenance CapEx. I'd now like to hand the call back to Steve for a market and business outlook. Thanks, Dev. Let's take a look at our end market outlook on Slide 12. We believe our diverse portfolio mix and geographic footprint positions Novelis well to capture the favorable long-term fundamental demand for aluminum products across end markets, driven mainly by sustainability and lightweighting preferences. It is more difficult to predict near-term demand, given high levels of macroeconomic uncertainty and the evolving tariff landscape. Demand for aluminum beverage packaging continues to be strong across regions, driven by favorable package mix shift towards aluminum. The near-term outlook for automotive is more uncertain. The market in Europe and China continues to be constrained by a soft macroeconomic environment, while tariff uncertainty is slowing overall build rates in North America. Demand for vehicles that use a higher share of aluminum, like SUVs and pickup trucks, are showing more resilience. Structural demand for new aircraft sustains the aluminum aerospace plate and sheet market, but OEM supply chain challenges and tariffs have led to higher inventory levels that may constrain near-term demand. Lastly, for specialties, demand in the building and construction market has modestly improved but remains suppressed. Meanwhile, economic and tariff uncertainty are reducing demand in some markets, including truck trailer and light gauge products, and slower EV rollouts are constraining demand in the battery market. Turning to Slide 13. We continue to make great progress with our greenfield rolling and recycling facility under construction in Bay Minette, Alabama. As a highly sophisticated and automated plant, Bay Minette is a bold step forward in transforming the future of sustainable aluminum manufacturing and a major step towards achieving our vision 3x30 goals. Designed from the ground up to set new standards in innovation, safety, aluminum production, and environmental stewardship, Bay Minette will serve as a cornerstone of our operations and a blueprint for what's possible when we lead with purpose. This plant will expand our capacity, support customers' growth, and our highest aim is to drive long-term value for our people, our partners, and our planet. We anticipate that approximately two-thirds of production at this 600 KT plant will be for the North American beverage packaging market, where demand currently outpaces local supply. The remaining capacity will primarily be targeted to the automotive market, with flexibility for specialties product production as well. Novelis has a proven record of delivering high-quality products and services to our customers, and we have secured long-term contracts for all the new beverage packaging capacity at this plant. Additionally, we continue to make good progress on the automotive contracting side and are confident we will have this finished prior to the plant coming online. Construction at Bay Minette continues on track to begin commissioning in the second half of calendar year 2026. The steel structure is nearing completion, with roofing and siding coming along well and equipment installation has begun. We intend to fund this project through internally generated cash flows and debt financing. $1.8 billion of the total project CapEx cost has been spent through the end of Q1. As Dev just mentioned, in June, we issued a $400 million tax-exempt municipal bond in Alabama, with the proceeds used to finance a portion of the construction costs at Bay Minette. In summary, we believe our diverse product portfolio and leadership position in the global aluminum beverage packaging market provides some stability in an unpredictable environment, which is compounded by tariff uncertainty. While scrap prices have stabilized somewhat, and we believe we are in a solid position, given our established global scrap supply network and efficient recycling operations, prices remain elevated compared to historically favorable levels of the recent past. In addition to the actions we have been working on to expand scrap sources, we are also accelerating operational and SG&A efficiency to reduce costs by over $300 million and mitigate margin pressures from elevated scrap prices. These activities put us on track to pull more expected cost savings forward into this fiscal year. We also believe we are doing the right thing in continuing to invest in the U.S. and onshore our supply chains to reduce dependency on imports with the construction of the Bay Minette plant in Alabama. We previously guided that the net impact from Section 232 tariffs at a 25% level could be approximately $40 million per quarter. As Q4 tariffs were raised to 50% in June, we believe an unmitigated net tariff impact could be approximately $60 million per quarter. We are diligently working through mitigation strategies, including advocacy for fair exemptions, customer pass-throughs, and opportunities to produce more in the U.S. to substantially lessen this impact. As these take some time to implement, we anticipate mitigation efforts will be more fruitful in the second half of this fiscal year. With approximately 60% of our shipping mix for the growing beverage packaging market and relatively stable demand across other end markets, we believe Novelis is well positioned in today's markets and provide the high recycled content products our customers want. Considering all these factors, tariff mitigation plans, cost out activity, and growing demand in our largest end market, we believe Adjusted EBITDA bottomed out in Q1. At the same time, we continue to make great progress advancing our investment at Bay Minette and commissioning other high return expansions that will further strengthen our ability to meet growing demand and drive shareholder returns. With that, we're happy to take your questions. Turn it back over to the operator. Thank you. We'll now be conducting the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question at this time, please press star one from your telephone keypad, and a confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you'd like to withdraw your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. We may address questions to as many as possible, we ask you to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you have additional questions, you may re-queue, and time permitting, those questions will be addressed. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Thank you. The first question is from the line of Sumangal Nevatia with Kotak Securities. Please proceed with your question. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for the chance. First question on the outlook. The increase in Section 232 tariffs to 50%, what is the impact in the next one or two quarters and then for the full year? We heard that it's a $60 million impact without any mitigation. Just want to understand some nuances here as to with mitigation, how do we see it on a sustainable basis if this continues, and when do we see the mitigation remains kind of protecting us or easing the pressure? Thank you, Sumangal. Yes, I think I can help with explaining everything that you asked. As Steve just mentioned, that the unmitigated impact of tariffs with the 50% increase of Section 232 is $60 million. In Q2, we will take this impact. Having said that, mitigation actions are in place, so the gross impact will be around this. Having said that, mitigation actions are in place, strong mitigation actions, which include passing tariffs through, which include strategies to open up opportunities for more U.S. manufacturing, and most importantly, cost takeout actions, which will start giving very concrete results already in Q2. Therefore, despite taking an impact of full tariffs, we do not expect Q2 EBITDA to be too much worse as compared to Q1, which is what Steve meant by saying that we are bottoming out. Starting from Q3, we will see even more impact of the cost takeout actions and tariff mitigation strategies. Not all of it will play into Q3 as well on the mitigation strategies, but Q3 will see more of the offsetting actions coming. In Q4, we expect we'll see more or less the full mitigation actions, and we should really see a nice uplift in EBITDA by that time with everything combined. That is really the overall, you know, sort of direction that I can give to you. The point to remember is that at this level, we do not expect the EBITDA to have too much downside, and we are kind of in that bottoming out range. Just remember seasonality of Q3. That's the only input that I will give to you. That's really the best input that I can give to you at this moment. Understood. Just as a follow-up, because this tariff environment is quite dynamic, how have you come to this $40 million figure, and then when it is 50%, it's not $80 million but $60 million then? What are the nuances in this? Earlier, our understanding was that higher Midwest premium, once it increases to the level, which largely offset all the negatives, but it's not, right? Just want to understand, what is the interregional movement which is really impacting this? When we are talking about this $100 million cost takeout and cost transformation on a sustainable basis, are we saying that 500, 525 number becomes $25 higher with this cost transformation program? Is that the right way to look at it? Okay, that's a couple of things you're asking. First, why is a 25% impact $40 million and a 50% impact $60 million? That is because there are many dynamics that go into the net tariff impact. At a point when we calculated, you know, 25% being $40 million, the dynamics of local market premium, Midwest premium, et cetera, were of a different level. We are taking into account all the latest information on the arbitrage that we get on scrap, on Midwest premium, you know, and therefore, I can say with confidence that it is $60 million. You can take our input on that. That is one. Your question was about all the mitigation actions and, you know, like, will that be, you know, taking us above 500, 525? I think that we don't want to get too far ahead on, you know, the 500 or 525. We know that with all the force behind the cost takeout actions, even if we assume that the scrap situation remains challenging, you know, and we already know, we have said this several times, that directly on scrap, we have a whole range of initiators to get access to more scrap, to be able to use dirtier scrap and, you know, all the technology and other supply chain actions that we are taking. They are working. You know, again, I don't want to get too speculative. The one thing that we know is that our journey towards the $600 per ton is very much intact, and all the actions that we are taking on the cost side are really proactive actions for margin defense. We are getting ahead of any further volatility that may happen in the environment, given how much dynamism we have seen, therefore, we are going extremely strong on cost takeout actions. Therefore, we continue to retain the confidence that we are well on our journey. Despite all the headwinds, we are well on our journey to be able to get to that $600 per ton over time, particularly as we get BMNT commission. That is really what I can tell you for now, Sumangal. Dave, can we give just one number for EBITDA per ton, as far as guidance is concerned, for the full year and volume guidance for the full year at this position? Well, we, Sumangal, I don't think we'll go beyond this. I mean, I'll let you do your modeling. Okay. I think we have given you. With due respect, we have given you plenty of inputs to work with. Sure. Sure. Thank you so much, and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Amit Murarka with Axis Capital. Please proceed with your question. Yeah. Hi, good morning. Thanks for the opportunity. On the EBITDA per ton of $232, which is there for Q1, and, like you say, net out the $28 million impact from that roughly comes to $460 a ton versus $495 for Q4. Like, on the QOQ decline on margin, like, removing the tariff impact, is it purely because of mix or is it also, like, scrap spreads have gone down further? Like, could you explain that a bit? I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking about Q2- I'll just repeat myself. Yeah, I was saying that $432 a ton. Yes. is post $28 million tariff impact. If I remove the tariff impact, I get roughly... Yes. $460 a ton. It is still. Yes. lower than $494 in Q4. This decline in scrap spreads or product mix, what would that be? Yeah. Remember this, that the fourth quarter is typically a very strong quarter. You know, that's a fairly kind of visible trend. Having said that, we are also impacted by product mix issues. For example, you know, right now, the mix of beverage packaging is higher. Given the macroeconomic conditions, we are seeing some dilution of mix coming from auto and specialty. There is a mix impact that is also going in to your question. That is really how one should think about this. Now, what do we think about, you know, going forward? We kind of continue to be very confident about the underlying strength of both our specialties market as well as the automotive market. Adoption is going well in automotive specialties. Every single market that we are now focusing on is fundamentally a GDP plus market. Right now, we are seeing some headwinds coming from the overall tariff environment, conservatism on investing and spending, just given the market uncertainties, but this market will definitely come back. The product mix will come back. You know, the point that you were making, you know, we will see a bounce back as we see some improvement in the overall macro trends coming from mix. Understood. Also just quickly on scrap spread, your presentation mentions that the scrap price has slacked down, whereas LME ingot is higher than Q1 averages. The scrap spread has essentially improved, can we expect that to reflect into margins maybe by Q2, Q3? You know, we don't want to get too speculative about spreads. I mean, the one thing that we have learned is that, you know, the market has tended to go up and down. You know, what we can tell you is what the present market conditions are. If I just kind of take a snapshot on where things are now, the markets are stable, availability is good. Do I want to keep speculating about the next quarter and the next quarter? I would not do that. What we are doing is controlling things that we can control, i.e., we will keep taking margin protection action on cost. We will take all the actions to ramp up our new recycling facilities to increase scrap content. We will keep taking actions that help us to continue to defend and improve margins, and we will keep watching the scrap markets. I mean, you know, that's the strategy that the company is following now: control the controllables, manage the controllables. Well, thank you so much. I will come back in the queue. Sure. The next question is in the line of Tarang Agarwal with Old Bridge Asset Management. Please just give your question. Hi, good evening. Two, three questions from my side. You know, if we look at your volumes in each of the end markets, what we notice is that your product mix is actually inferior, with beverage cans demonstrating resilience and other parts of your business, which would typically have higher realizations going down. Even though that has been the case, the price impact that we see on your EBITDA bridge has been quite negligible. In fact, only to the tune of $11 million. That would generally suggest that the impact of higher pricing on your beverage cans has started kicking in. Is that the right way to probably look at this? Well, yeah, a couple of things here. The effect of better prices is kicking in. However, a part of it is kind of getting negated by the mix, which I just answered in the previous question, that our mix, given the current market conditions, has kind of taken a bit of a pullback when it comes to automotive and specialties. Okay? Net, net, what I'm telling you is that we firmly believe that the automotive and specialties market are waiting on the sidelines for some stability and improvement in the interest rates. Once that comes, we will see a bounce back, and the mix impact will kind of go away and actually flip the other side. Therefore, you know, yes, you're right, that, you know, the price actions are kind of getting impacted by the worsening of the mix, and that, we believe, is transitory. We are very happy, and we continue to believe that. We continue to believe that, you know, the beverage packaging market will gain. It's a very good market. Pricing will continue to improve as we look further, and so we feel good about that and all the other end markets. Dev, because from my calculation, the delta on beverage cans is coming out to be anywhere between mid-double digits to slightly on the higher double digits end, insofar as the conversion premium is concerned. Am I in the right direction? I don't know if I want to go there. I mean, you know, the inputs that we gave you are the inputs. Particularly on the pricing side, it's a hypersensitive thing for us. We really don't want to go too far into pricing discussions. Sure. Sure. Thanks. Dave, you know, you spoke about a $28 million tariff impact. Yeah. just wanted to know, how this has been calculated, and would all of it be pertaining to the North America section of the business? What are the components of the tariff? There are a couple of them. One is that given the current shortage of capacity that we have in North America, we are depending on Asia to ship beverage packaging material to North America. There is a tariff on that. We get a very decent offset to that tariff, you know, because of the high elevated Midwest premium. That's one component. The other component is that we also depend on Kingston, Ontario, Canada, you know, for some part of our production, which comes into the United States, and on that also we pay tariffs. These are the two largest components of the tariff, and the $28 million, as we keep saying, has a net set off built into it after calculating the gross tariff at 50%. That's the way. I told you the components of the tariff, that's what makes up the tariff amount. Okay, let me, Midwest premium, I mean, metal price lag is generally something that you don't consider when you lay out the Adjusted EBITDA numbers, right? That will not be considered in this comparison, correct? I'm talking about the premiums. Lower premium in Asia and a much higher Midwest premium. We get the benefit of that arbitrage both in scrap as well as we get that arbitrage in the pricing because we sell at Midwest, you know, which is higher than the premiums in Asia. That's the arbitrage that I'm talking about. Okay. The last question: You know, going to lower scrap spreads, now that almost 9 months-10 months has elapsed, since the scrap pricing has in start, what do you think would be the overall margin compression for the business versus, say, you know, when scrap prices were more conducive in the earlier era? Yeah. Directional answer, Sorry, the margin worsening we have seen from levels of low $500s, even up to $525. You can attribute the largest part of that from there to where we are today, to the worsening of the scrap conditions. Layered on top is the tariff. If you consider tariff. Got it. Scrap worsening, this more or less explains our margins being where they are today. There is really no other element. There are some positive offset elements also built into that, coming from better pricing, and already some disciplined cost actions. Largely, you can say that the margin worsening from historical levels to now can be attributed to metal and scrap and now overlay tariffs into it. As Steve already said, we are at the bottom. The actions that we laid out over the last. Go ahead. Please go ahead. Oh, no, I was just going to say, the actions that we've laid out, the cost out initiatives, the footprint optimization, operational efficiencies, is there, primarily at the margin that we're losing, on the scrap pricing, side of the business. Yes. Got it. How should we look at the peak leverage now, and when should we see this hitting the financials? We will continue to manage our balance sheet to a net leverage of 3.5x. That does not change. Just given the pressure on EBITDA, could there be quarters where we kind of have a slight increase? Yes, we are absolutely committed that we will keep our balance sheet around the 3.5x net leverage target. That does not change. Yeah. Thank you, guys, wonderful. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Satyadeep Jain with Ambit Capital. Please just your question. Hi, thank you. First question on the tariff as a follow-up to Pan's question. Just trying to understand, the volumes are bringing from Ulsan and the trade, it seems like, if you look at the calculations, you're incurring, if I'm not, maybe correct me if I'm wrong, but an EBITDA loss on whatever you're bringing into U.S. from these two markets, given the kind of impact we're seeing. Is it feasible to redirect that material? I know you lose maybe long-term customers, but is that a thought that if it continues, at some point you may look at redirecting that to some other market? How does the conversation flow with customers? In your conversation with customers, what kind of tariff absorption on this import are they okay with? Tied to that would be, as you see Bay Minette and some of the other facilities coming, these imports may not be required. The entire intent of bringing these capacities is that U.S. becomes self-sufficient. How do you redirect really bringing this material to the U.S., especially South Korean, because it's a higher price? Once these capacities are there, what kind of impact do we see on the volumes that gets redirected? That's the first question on tariff. On beverage packaging, what we're doing is supporting the U.S. market, right? The coil's coming in primarily from South Korea, some coming in from Brazil as well. Those are, as we've said multiple times, we've signed contracts and the market is short. We do need to fulfill those contracts until Bay Minette is up and supplying the market. Yes, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what we're doing, is domesticating the supply chain into the U.S. Unfortunately, in the meantime, we do need to import these coils. Again, as Dev said, the importation of the coils, we have some offset to the 50% tariffs as it relates to the current arbitrage between NJP, local premium in Asia, versus the Midwest premium as well. You need to, you know, make sure you understand both of those components. When we talk about need for additional capacity, we will continue to unlock capacity in the U.S. as much as we can, primarily for automotive and specialty pack products. The more we can load the U.S. plants the more we can avoid in some of the tariffs associated with production in, coming out of Canada back into the U.S. There's many mitigating strategies that we're working on. As we said, in the prepared remarks, $60 million is unmitigated. We already are taking actions, and we believe that the significant portion of the $60 million will be offset under the current tariff regime, really starting in the second half of fiscal 2026. On that, tariffs, mitigation, it seems like you have conversations with customers, they're looking to pass on. Just trying to understand, have the customer conversations given you confidence that you'll be able to pass on, these, some of these tariffs to customers? The second part of the question was maybe what can you do when somewhere else, what kind of, impact does it have? Because you're getting higher margins in the U.S. for that shipment. Yeah. We are having conversations with customers, as Satish Pai talked about earlier, we won't get into very specifics here. We are having some success. Of course, they are also looking for the longer term mitigation strategy, such as adding capacity into the US to avoid some of these tariffs as well. They kind of get linked in those discussions. They've been, they're part of the overall mitigation strategies that we have until we can get the full, you know, local capacity inside the US. We'll work to debottleneck various assets that we have. You know, I think we'll be able to lay out more specifics as we go into the second quarter as to the very specific actions taken to mitigate these. We feel very comfortable that we have the plan in place to really start to mitigate these tariffs starting in the second half of fiscal 2026. Okay. Second question on scrap. Just generally, when we look at the commentary, it seems like a lot of the other in their first half from scrap because those were relatively longer term contracts, contracted when scrap prices are higher. Now that scrap prices are lower, if they had more open capacity, that can be tied up with lower scrap, so that should flow into the low scrap cost in like the particular quarter. In your commentary, I'm just trying to understand, is there a different kind of scrap mix? Are you also going to see similar benefit as a contracting strategy different? We generally heard that 50% long-term, 50% opens in some of the other, we have the network, we'll start benefiting in the second half. Just trying to understand your contracting and how is it positioned? Yeah. I'll try to give you a picture here. The most profound impact, negative impact of all the tightening of scrap happened on UBCs. Other scrap categories, which include closed-loop, where we have contracts with customers, as an example, or other auto slash auto end-of-life, other mixed scrap, building and construction related scrap, all these were relatively impacted, you know, to a much lesser degree. Now, the markets have stabilized slash improved. As we keep on saying, we continue to work on strategies to reduce dependence on UBCs, being able to use other mixed scrap, dirtier scrap, and so on. More end-of-life scrap, both in the building and construction category, but in the auto category. Our strategies are working on a number of fronts, some of which I just mentioned, diversify scrap, continue reducing dependence on UBCs so that market pressures don't keep increasing with increasing demand, working on the supply chain and so on and so forth. Specifically related to contracting, yes, I mean, we do contract a very, a very decent amount in markets like North America and Europe. Asia and South America are spot markets, and therefore they become subject to more volatility as compared to, as compared to the North American markets. At this moment, I can tell you that spot prices are lower as compared to contracted prices, but that's part of the game. I mean, when you contract, you are trying to, you know, sort of look for stability, bring in stability. You don't always win when you contract. In the earlier part, we got the benefit when scrap prices went up. Now, you know, we are paying a bit of a price. It's complex dynamics, and we work very, very closely to manage every single dynamic. The one that we are managing the most closely is really working on controllable actions, such as diversifying scrap sources, reducing dependence on UBC, being able to work with technology to have access to more scrap. That is what we continue doing as we speak. ... Just a follow-up on this. Generally, because I'm trying to understand the scrap prices we see published, there is some of this, maybe decent, moderation from the peak. Have you also for UBC, because I'm not sure we are seeing the correct prices? Have you seen sharp reduction in scrap prices versus the peak that you had, and maybe where is spot versus the contracting is, maybe directionally, what kind of difference are we looking at and that can possibly help you in next year? Yeah. I suppose what you're looking at is U.S. prices, correct? from all the published sources. Yes. The answer is yes. I mean, I was saying that earlier also, that spot prices in the U.S. have declined fairly sharply, we are getting some benefit of that, not the entire benefit, because we do have some contracting. Basically, yes, the answer is we are getting some benefit of that. Having said that, remember that ECBP has worsened, MJP is also in the worsening direction. There's a bit of a setoff. Okay? Yes, I mean, your observation that particularly UBC prices in the U.S. have sharply come down is correct. Net net, that is the net improvement we are talking about, with some offset coming from other premiums falling. Okay? Therefore, I again repeat the same thing, that the scrap market on a relative basis, quarter-on-quarter, is looking better. That's about what it is. Okay. Thank you so much, Anish, for this. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. The next question is from the line of Pallav Agarwal with Antique Stock Broking. Please proceed with your questions. Good evening, sir. I had a question on the metal price lag for this quarter. From the presentation, I guess there's been a positive metal price in Q1. I thought LME aluminum prices were lower, both on a sequential and on a YY basis. That should have probably led to a negative price lag. Is my understanding correct, or there's some other discrepancy in that? It's not LME that impacts us because we are hedged on LME. What impacts us, and this time it is sharply positive, is the increase in the Midwest premium. Basically, the Midwest premium, as you know, has gone from levels of like used to be $450 before all the tariff noise started, and now it is in the region of $1,500. Basically, the metal price lag is largely the outcome of a much higher Midwest premium. Sure. The other question was, you know, in these, where you mentioned that Q1 probably has bottomed out. We're probably referring to the absolute EBITDA, and not the Adjusted EBITDA for time. Is that understanding correct? Yes, please. It's absolute EBITDA that we are talking about. Adjust, adjusted. Adjusted, absolute number. The dollar number is what we are talking about. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, thanks for the clarification. That's it. Yeah. Sure. Next question is in the line of Amit Dixit with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, hi. Good evening and good morning, everyone. Just one question from my side: What will be the recycling content for this quarter? Given we have a couple of facilities ramping up, what is the trajectory that we expect to see for recycling as we look inside? Basically, we are heading towards 75% recycling content over the next many years. That vision and that strategy and all the action behind that are looking extremely good. Our recycling content will continue to improve. As you know very well, we have recently commissioned new recycling facilities, whether it is at Guthrie or whether it is in Ulsan, and then in future we will have a recycling capacity in Bay Minette. In short, the current recycling content, you know, last year was like 63%. You know, our current recycling content is kind of hovering around that. As we ramp up our new recycling facilities and as all our strategies to add more recycling content, including auto end-of-life and so on, start to work, this content will steadily keep going up. New alloy innovation, with more recycled content, all these things are working on track and will help us to get to that vision of 75% steadily over the next couple of years. Okay, just to follow up on this, since the recycling content is also increasing, and I expect it to increase through the year. Basically, the EBITDA pattern should get some tailwind, from that as well, given that the scrap prices are expected to be past their peak. Is the assumption correct? Definitely. Yeah, definitely. What we are saying is that, you know, A, the content will keep going up. You know, I mean, hopefully, you know, it is enough to be able to mitigate the pricing pressures and increase competition. We always said over the years, even before the last year's situation changed dramatically, we always said that we expect scrap competition and scrap prices to go up because, you know, the recycling content strategy is being now followed across the industry. Everybody is putting assets around recycling. We were completely prepared for that situation. Basically, what I would say is that, increasing competition and pricing pressures, that will continue to happen, will be offset by our continued increase in recycling content at a minimum. If pricing situation improves, good for us, good for everyone. I mean, our shareholders will be happy. Thanks, Vik, and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Amit Lahoti with MK. Please proceed with your question. Thanks for the opportunity. When it comes to tariff pass-through, like we do benefit from metal price lag due to Midwest premiums, are our customers asking us to bear some brunt of the tariff? Are we able to fully pass it through in customer contracts? Yeah, I mean, again, it's a complex situation. We signed the contracts for beverage packaging two years back and are fulfilling those commitments. We do benefit from the different LME Asia premiums versus Midwest. We continue to work on mitigation actions, advocacy, to get some specific exemptions associated with some of this as well. You know, each conversation with customers is a little bit different based on what contracts we have in place and what the longer term intent is of each of the customers. I would just say, again, we're very confident in the actions that we have in place to be able to offset the $60 million per quarter, beginning in the second half of fiscal 2026. Identified actions of which, we just need time to execute against at this point in time. Okay. Still, if you could give some indication of timeline in terms of when these contracts get renegotiated at higher tariffs. That is how- No, this is not about contracts getting renegotiated at higher tariffs. Our strategy is to mitigate the tariff impact through multiple means, which means having more access to local capacity in the U.S., as an example, some tariff pass-throughs. Our strategy is basically that with all the actions that we are taking. In the second half of the year, we should be able to offset the impact. Rather than going and renegotiating with customers, we are basically working on actions which will be win-win. We kind of mitigate the tariffs. That's how we want to help and serve our customers and ourselves. Is it fair to assume that $16 million of tariff impact that you have guided for Q2, it will be fully offset, let's say, by Q4 of this year? Reasonably. Absolutely. I mean, that's what we are working towards. Some impact of that in Q3, but Q3 is seasonally low, so always remember that in mind. Our mitigation strategies will start working and will fully ramp up by Q4. Okay. Thank you, and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Our final question is from the line of Ankit Jalan with CLSA. Please proceed with your question. Hi, thank you for taking my question. I just wanted to check, will the mitigation actions have any impact on volumes? No. Okay, we won't see any impact on volumes on mitigation. All right, that's it. Thank you so much. I mean, they will protect volumes. When you say impact on volumes, they will protect the volumes, because we are making sure that we defend our volumes versus going to customers and asking them to bear the impact. In some cases, contractually, we can and we will. The idea is that we kind of defend the volumes, because on a prolonged basis, asking customers to absorb will be harmful. Mitigation will be a defense to the volumes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We've reached the end of the question and answer session. I'll turn the call back to Mr. Fisher for closing remarks. Thank you, operator. Thanks to everyone for attending our call today. The macroeconomic environment is challenging, but as we've said many times, we're finding the opportunities to streamline our cost structure, freeing up resources that can be invested to meet the continued growing market demand for low carbon, more sustainable aluminum products. I want to thank everyone for their support. We look forward to providing another business and financial update on our Q2 earnings call. In the meantime, have a great day. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.