Commitment and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitment and Contingencies
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	11. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION Non-Income Tax The government in the Brazilian State of Parana (“Parana”) issued a tax assessment on October 26, 2007 with respect to local intrastate trade tax credits that result primarily from tobacco transferred between states within Brazil. The assessment for intrastate trade tax credits taken is $7,024 and the total assessment including penalties and interest through December 31, 2011 is $16,668. The Company believes it has properly complied with Brazilian law and will contest any assessment through the judicial process. Should the Company lose in the judicial process, the loss of the intrastate trade tax credits would have a material impact on the financial statements of the Company. The Company also has local intrastate trade tax credits in the Brazil State of Rio Grande do Sul and the State of Santa Catarina. These jurisdictions permit the sale or transfer of excess credits to third parties, however approval must be obtained from the tax authorities. The Company has agreements with the state governments regarding the amounts and timing of credits that can be sold. The tax credits have a carrying value of $34,798, which is net of impairment charges based on management’s expectations about future realization. The intrastate trade tax credits will continue to be monitored for impairment in future periods based on market conditions and the Company’s ability to use or sell the tax credits. In 2001, the Company’s subsidiary in Brazil won a claim related to certain excise taxes (“IPI credit bonus”) for the years 1983 through 1990. The Company used this IPI credit bonus to offset federal income and other taxes until January 2005 when it received a Judicial Order to suspend the IPI compensation. In addition, the Company received an assessment in 2006 for federal income taxes that were offset by the IPI credit bonus. The assessment is valued at $25,920 at December 31, 2011. The Company appealed the assessment and believes it has properly utilized the IPI credit bonus. No benefit for the utilization of the IPI credit bonus has been recognized as it has been recorded in Pension, Postretirement and Other Long-Term Liabilities. On September 9, 2011, the Court affirmed the Company’s position regarding the IPI credit bonus which is subject to appeal. The Company does not expect resolution in the near future, which would directly impact the outcome of the Company’s appeal of the tax assessment as well as its utilization of its remaining IPI credit bonus. No benefit for any potential future utilization of IPI credit bonus has been recognized. Other In October 2001, the Directorate General for Competition (“DGCOMP”) of the European Commission (“EC”) began an administrative investigation into certain tobacco buying and selling practices alleged to have occurred within the leaf tobacco industry in some countries within the European Union, including Spain and Italy. In respect of the investigation into practices in Spain, in 2004 the EC fined the Company and its Spanish subsidiaries €4,415 (US $5,641). In respect of the investigation into practices in Italy, in October 2005 the EC announced that the Company and its Italian subsidiaries were assessed fines in the aggregate amount of €24,000 (US $28,800). With respect to both the Spanish and Italian investigations, the fines imposed on the Company and its predecessors and subsidiaries were part of fines assessed on several participants in the applicable industry. The Company, along with its applicable subsidiaries, lodged several appeals against the EC decisions and these cases are currently at various stages of appeal before the European Court of Justice. The outcome of the appeals is uncertain as to both timing and results. The Company has fully recognized the impact of each of the fines set forth above and has paid all of such fines as part of the appeal process. Mindo, S.r.l. has asserted claims against a subsidiary of the Company arising out of the 2004 sale of the Company’s former Italian subsidiary, Dimon Italia, S.r.l., in an action filed before the Court of Rome on April 12, 2007. The claim, allegedly arising from a guaranty letter issued by a consolidated subsidiary of the Company in connection with the sale transaction, seeks the recovery of €7,377 (US $9,552) plus interest and costs. A hearing for the disposition of this matter was held in December 2011 and the court’s ruling is pending. No amounts have been reserved with respect to such claim. On June 6, 2008, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary and a number of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action initiated by the ALPAG - Associação Lourenciana de Pequenos Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of São Lourenço”). The class action’s focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts and business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt, prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers’ debt from payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco. The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of São Lourenço do Sul. The Company’s motion to dismiss the class action is currently pending. The Company believes this claim to be without merit and is vigorously defending it. Ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not determinable. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the Company records all known asset retirement obligations (“ARO”) for which the liability can be reasonably estimated. Currently, it has identified an ARO associated with one of its facilities that requires it to restore the land to its initial condition upon vacating the facility. The Company has not recognized a liability under generally accepted accounting principles for this ARO because the fair value of restoring the land at this site cannot be reasonably estimated since the settlement date is unknown at this time. The settlement date is unknown because the land restoration is not required until title is returned to the government, and the Company has no current or future plans to return the title. The Company will recognize a liability in the period in which sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate its fair value. The Company has no additional material AROs.

Commitment and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

11. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION

Non-Income Tax

The government in the Brazilian State of Parana (“Parana”) issued a tax assessment on October 26, 2007 with respect to local intrastate trade tax credits that result primarily from tobacco transferred between states within Brazil. The assessment for intrastate trade tax credits taken is $7,024 and the total assessment including penalties and interest through December 31, 2011 is $16,668. The Company believes it has properly complied with Brazilian law and will contest any assessment through the judicial process. Should the Company lose in the judicial process, the loss of the intrastate trade tax credits would have a material impact on the financial statements of the Company.

The Company also has local intrastate trade tax credits in the Brazil State of Rio Grande do Sul and the State of Santa Catarina. These jurisdictions permit the sale or transfer of excess credits to third parties, however approval must be obtained from the tax authorities. The Company has agreements with the state governments regarding the amounts and timing of credits that can be sold. The tax credits have a carrying value of $34,798, which is net of impairment charges based on management’s expectations about future realization. The intrastate trade tax credits will continue to be monitored for impairment in future periods based on market conditions and the Company’s ability to use or sell the tax credits.

In 2001, the Company’s subsidiary in Brazil won a claim related to certain excise taxes (“IPI credit bonus”) for the years 1983 through 1990. The Company used this IPI credit bonus to offset federal income and other taxes until January 2005 when it received a Judicial Order to suspend the IPI compensation. In addition, the Company received an assessment in 2006 for federal income taxes that were offset by the IPI credit bonus. The assessment is valued at $25,920 at December 31, 2011. The Company appealed the assessment and believes it has properly utilized the IPI credit bonus. No benefit for the utilization of the IPI credit bonus has been recognized as it has been recorded in Pension, Postretirement and Other Long-Term Liabilities. On September 9, 2011, the Court affirmed the Company’s position regarding the IPI credit bonus which is subject to appeal. The Company does not expect resolution in the near future, which would directly impact the outcome of the Company’s appeal of the tax assessment as well as its utilization of its remaining IPI credit bonus. No benefit for any potential future utilization of IPI credit bonus has been recognized.

Other

In October 2001, the Directorate General for Competition (“DGCOMP”) of the European Commission (“EC”) began an administrative investigation into certain tobacco buying and selling practices alleged to have occurred within the leaf tobacco industry in some countries within the European Union, including Spain and Italy. In respect of the investigation into practices in Spain, in 2004 the EC fined the Company and its Spanish subsidiaries €4,415 (US $5,641). In respect of the investigation into practices in Italy, in October 2005 the EC announced that the Company and its Italian subsidiaries were assessed fines in the aggregate amount of €24,000 (US $28,800). With respect to both the Spanish and Italian investigations, the fines imposed on the Company and its predecessors and subsidiaries were part of fines assessed on several participants in the applicable industry. The Company, along with its applicable subsidiaries, lodged several appeals against the EC decisions and these cases are currently at various stages of appeal before the European Court of Justice. The outcome of the appeals is uncertain as to both timing and results. The Company has fully recognized the impact of each of the fines set forth above and has paid all of such fines as part of the appeal process.

Mindo, S.r.l. has asserted claims against a subsidiary of the Company arising out of the 2004 sale of the Company’s former Italian subsidiary, Dimon Italia, S.r.l., in an action filed before the Court of Rome on April 12, 2007. The claim, allegedly arising from a guaranty letter issued by a consolidated subsidiary of the Company in connection with the sale transaction, seeks the recovery of €7,377 (US $9,552) plus interest and costs. A hearing for the disposition of this matter was held in December 2011 and the court’s ruling is pending. No amounts have been reserved with respect to such claim.

On June 6, 2008, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary and a number of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action initiated by the ALPAG - Associação Lourenciana de Pequenos Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of São Lourenço”). The class action’s focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts and business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt, prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers’ debt from payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco. The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of São Lourenço do Sul. The Company’s motion to dismiss the class action is currently pending. The Company believes this claim to be without merit and is vigorously defending it. Ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not determinable.

In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the Company records all known asset retirement obligations (“ARO”) for which the liability can be reasonably estimated. Currently, it has identified an ARO associated with one of its facilities that requires it to restore the land to its initial condition upon vacating the facility. The Company has not recognized a liability under generally accepted accounting principles for this ARO because the fair value of restoring the land at this site cannot be reasonably estimated since the settlement date is unknown at this time. The settlement date is unknown because the land restoration is not required until title is returned to the government, and the Company has no current or future plans to return the title. The Company will recognize a liability in the period in which sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate its fair value. The Company has no additional material AROs.