Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	(6) Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various claims which have arisen in the normal course of business. The impact of the final resolution of these matters on the Company’s results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. Management is of the opinion, however, that the ultimate outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition or liquidity. On October 29, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United Kingdom by United Phosphorous Limited (“UPL”) against Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“AACC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In the lawsuit, UPL alleges, among other things, that AACC breached a 1995 agreement regarding European sales of a potato sprout suppression product, by selling the product in Europe. UPL claims damages of approximately £4,500 (approximately US $7,200) plus an unspecified amount of additional damages. While the impact of the resolution of the matter, including any legal and other associated costs, on the Company’s consolidated results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known at this time, after a detailed review and careful analysis of the allegations, AACC strongly denies the allegations, believes that UPL’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. In fiscal years 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company received letters from the Pulvair Site Group, a group of potentially responsible parties (PRP Group) who are working with the State of Tennessee (the State) to remediate a contaminated property in Tennessee called the Pulvair site. The PRP Group has alleged that Aceto shipped hazardous substances to the site which were released into the environment. The State had begun administrative proceedings against the members of the PRP Group and Aceto with respect to the cleanup of the Pulvair site and the PRP Group has begun to undertake cleanup. The PRP Group is seeking a settlement of approximately $1,700 from the Company for its share to remediate the site contamination. Although the Company acknowledges that it shipped materials to the site for formulation over twenty years ago, the Company believes that the evidence does not show that the hazardous materials sent by Aceto to the site have significantly contributed to the contamination of the environment and thus believes that, at most, it is a de minimus contributor to the site contamination. Accordingly, the Company believes that the settlement offer is unreasonable. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company's results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. However, management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or liquidity. The Company has environmental remediation obligations in connection with Arsynco, Inc. (Arsynco), a subsidiary formerly involved in manufacturing chemicals located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, which was closed in 1993 and is currently held for sale. Based on continued monitoring of the contamination at the site and the approved plan of remediation, the Company received an estimate from an environmental consultant stating that the costs of remediation could be between $8,400 and $10,200. Remediation commenced in fiscal 2010, and as of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, a liability of $7,028 and $7,566, respectively, is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets for this matter. In accordance with GAAP, management believes that the majority of costs incurred to remediate the site will be capitalized in preparing the property which is currently classified as held for sale. An appraisal of the fair value of the property by a third-party appraiser supports the assumption that the expected fair value after the remediation is in excess of the amount required to be capitalized. However, these matters, if resolved in a manner different from those assumed in current estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, operating results and cash flows when resolved in a future reporting period. In connection with the environmental remediation obligation for Arsynco, in July 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with BASF Corporation (BASF), the former owners of the Arsynco property. In accordance with the settlement agreement, BASF paid for a portion of the prior remediation costs and going forward, will co-remediate the property with the Company. In accordance with the contract, BASF paid $550 related to past response costs and will pay a proportionate share of the future remediation costs. Accordingly, the Company recorded a gain of $550 in fiscal 2009. This $550 gain relates to the partial reimbursement of costs of approximately $1,200 that the Company previously expensed. The Company also recorded an additional receivable from BASF, with an offset against property held for sale, representing its estimated portion of the future remediation costs. The balance of this receivable for future remediation costs as of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 is $3,163 and $3,405, respectively, which is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. In March 2006, Arsynco received notice from the EPA of its status as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for a site described as the Berry’s Creek Study Area. Arsynco is one of over 150 PRPs which have potential liability for the required investigation and remediation of the site. The estimate of the potential liability is not quantifiable for a number of reasons, including the difficulty in determining the extent of contamination and the length of time remediation may require. In addition, any estimate of liability must also consider the number of other PRPs and their financial strength. Based on prior practice in similar situations, it is possible that the State may assert a claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself, and either the federal government or the State (or both) may assert claims against Arsynco for natural resource damages in connection with Berry's Creek; any such claim with respect to Berry's Creek could also be asserted against the approximately 150 PRPs which the EPA has identified in connection with that site. Any claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself may also be asserted against BASF, the former owners of the Arsynco property. In September 2012, Arsynco entered into an agreement with three of the other PRPs that had previously been impleaded into New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-9868-05 (the "NJDEP Litigation") and were considering impleading Arsynco into same. Arsynco entered into agreement to avoid impleader. Pursuant to agreement, Arsynco agreed to (1) a tolling period that would not be included when computing the running of any statute of limitations that might provide a defense to the NJDEP Litigation; (2) the waiver of certain issue preclusion defenses in the NJDEP Litigation; and (3) arbitration of certain potential future liability allocation claims if the other parties to the agreement are barred by a court of competent jurisdiction from proceeding against Arsynco. Since an amount of the liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company’s results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. However, management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or liquidity. A subsidiary of the Company markets certain agricultural protection products which are subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires that test data be provided to the EPA to register, obtain and maintain approved labels for pesticide products. The EPA requires that follow-on registrants of these products compensate the initial registrant for the cost of producing the necessary test data on a basis prescribed in the FIFRA regulations. Follow-on registrants do not themselves generate or contract for the data. However, when FIFRA requirements mandate that new test data be generated to enable all registrants to continue marketing a pesticide product, often both the initial and follow-on registrants establish a task force to jointly undertake the testing effort. The Company is presently a member of several such task force groups, which requires payments for such memberships. In addition, in connection with its agricultural protection business, the Company plans to acquire product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to support such registrations and other supporting data for several products. The acquisition of these product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as payments to various task force groups could approximate $4,129 through fiscal 2014, of which $121 and $242 has been accrued as of December, 2012 and June 30, 2012, respectively.

(6) Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various claims which have arisen in the normal course of business. The impact of the final resolution of these matters on the Company’s results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. Management is of the opinion, however, that the ultimate outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition or liquidity.

On October 29, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United Kingdom by United Phosphorous Limited (“UPL”) against Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“AACC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In the lawsuit, UPL alleges, among other things, that AACC breached a 1995 agreement regarding European sales of a potato sprout suppression product, by selling the product in Europe. UPL claims damages of approximately £4,500 (approximately US $7,200) plus an unspecified amount of additional damages. While the impact of the resolution of the matter, including any legal and other associated costs, on the Company’s consolidated results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known at this time, after a detailed review and careful analysis of the allegations, AACC strongly denies the allegations, believes that UPL’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In fiscal years 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company received letters from the Pulvair Site Group, a group of potentially responsible parties (PRP Group) who are working with the State of Tennessee (the State) to remediate a contaminated property in Tennessee called the Pulvair site. The PRP Group has alleged that Aceto shipped hazardous substances to the site which were released into the environment. The State had begun administrative proceedings against the members of the PRP Group and Aceto with respect to the cleanup of the Pulvair site and the PRP Group has begun to undertake cleanup. The PRP Group is seeking a settlement of approximately $1,700 from the Company for its share to remediate the site contamination. Although the Company acknowledges that it shipped materials to the site for formulation over twenty years ago, the Company believes that the evidence does not show that the hazardous materials sent by Aceto to the site have significantly contributed to the contamination of the environment and thus believes that, at most, it is a de minimus contributor to the site contamination. Accordingly, the Company believes that the settlement offer is unreasonable. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company's results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. However, management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or liquidity.

The Company has environmental remediation obligations in connection with Arsynco, Inc. (Arsynco), a subsidiary formerly involved in manufacturing chemicals located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, which was closed in 1993 and is currently held for sale. Based on continued monitoring of the contamination at the site and the approved plan of remediation, the Company received an estimate from an environmental consultant stating that the costs of remediation could be between $8,400 and $10,200. Remediation commenced in fiscal 2010, and as of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, a liability of $7,028 and $7,566, respectively, is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets for this matter. In accordance with GAAP, management believes that the majority of costs incurred to remediate the site will be capitalized in preparing the property which is currently classified as held for sale. An appraisal of the fair value of the property by a third-party appraiser supports the assumption that the expected fair value after the remediation is in excess of the amount required to be capitalized. However, these matters, if resolved in a manner different from those assumed in current estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, operating results and cash flows when resolved in a future reporting period.

In connection with the environmental remediation obligation for Arsynco, in July 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with BASF Corporation (BASF), the former owners of the Arsynco property. In accordance with the settlement agreement, BASF paid for a portion of the prior remediation costs and going forward, will co-remediate the property with the Company. In accordance with the contract, BASF paid $550 related to past response costs and will pay a proportionate share of the future remediation costs. Accordingly, the Company recorded a gain of $550 in fiscal 2009. This $550 gain relates to the partial reimbursement of costs of approximately $1,200 that the Company previously expensed. The Company also recorded an additional receivable from BASF, with an offset against property held for sale, representing its estimated portion of the future remediation costs. The balance of this receivable for future remediation costs as of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 is $3,163 and $3,405, respectively, which is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

In March 2006, Arsynco received notice from the EPA of its status as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for a site described as the Berry’s Creek Study Area. Arsynco is one of over 150 PRPs which have potential liability for the required investigation and remediation of the site. The estimate of the potential liability is not quantifiable for a number of reasons, including the difficulty in determining the extent of contamination and the length of time remediation may require. In addition, any estimate of liability must also consider the number of other PRPs and their financial strength. Based on prior practice in similar situations, it is possible that the State may assert a claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself, and either the federal government or the State (or both) may assert claims against Arsynco for natural resource damages in connection with Berry's Creek; any such claim with respect to Berry's Creek could also be asserted against the approximately 150 PRPs which the EPA has identified in connection with that site. Any claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself may also be asserted against BASF, the former owners of the Arsynco property. In September 2012, Arsynco entered into an agreement with three of the other PRPs that had previously been impleaded into New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-9868-05 (the "NJDEP Litigation") and were considering impleading Arsynco into same. Arsynco entered into agreement to avoid impleader. Pursuant to agreement, Arsynco agreed to (1) a tolling period that would not be included when computing the running of any statute of limitations that might provide a defense to the NJDEP Litigation; (2) the waiver of certain issue preclusion defenses in the NJDEP Litigation; and (3) arbitration of certain potential future liability allocation claims if the other parties to the agreement are barred by a court of competent jurisdiction from proceeding against Arsynco. Since an amount of the liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company’s results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. However, management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or liquidity.

A subsidiary of the Company markets certain agricultural protection products which are subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires that test data be provided to the EPA to register, obtain and maintain approved labels for pesticide products. The EPA requires that follow-on registrants of these products compensate the initial registrant for the cost of producing the necessary test data on a basis prescribed in the FIFRA regulations. Follow-on registrants do not themselves generate or contract for the data. However, when FIFRA requirements mandate that new test data be generated to enable all registrants to continue marketing a pesticide product, often both the initial and follow-on registrants establish a task force to jointly undertake the testing effort. The Company is presently a member of several such task force groups, which requires payments for such memberships. In addition, in connection with its agricultural protection business, the Company plans to acquire product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to support such registrations and other supporting data for several products. The acquisition of these product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as payments to various task force groups could approximate $4,129 through fiscal 2014, of which $121 and $242 has been accrued as of December, 2012 and June 30, 2012, respectively.