Contingencies and Other Information	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Information	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 $6,518 and the total assessment including penalties and interest at June 30, 2012 is $15,943. 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 $27,261, 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 $24,052 at June 30, 2012. 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. 10. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION (continued) 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 the aggregate. In respect of the investigation into practices in Italy, in October 2005 the EC announced the assessment of fines against the Company and its Italian subsidiaries of €24,000 (US $28,800) in the aggregate. 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 “ECJ”). On July 19, 2012, the ECJ denied the Company's appeal in joined cases C-628/10 and C-14/11 relating to a €1,800 fine imposed by the EC on one of the Company's Spanish subsidiaries, and as to which the EC further imposed joint and several parent company liability on the Company and such subsidiary's other shareholders (being a corporate predecessor of the Company, and a current subsidiary of the Company). The outcome of the remaining appeals, relating to a second case involving a different Spanish subsidiary regarding the remainder of the above-referenced €4,415 in fines, and the matters involving the Company and its Italian subsidiaries with respect to the above-referenced €24,000 in fines are uncertain as to both timing and results. A hearing before the ECJ relating to one of the appeals-pertaining to one of the Company's Italian subsidiaries which had been individually fined €3,990 (for which the Company was held jointly liable) has been scheduled for October 15, 2012. 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., the purchaser in 2004 of the Company's Italian subsidiary Dimon Italia, S.r.l., has asserted claims against subsidiaries of the Company arising out of that sale transaction 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 $9,277) plus interest and costs. A hearing for the disposition of this matter was held in December 2011 and the court's ruling is pending. Due to the uncertain legal interpretation in a foreign jurisdiction and the complexity of the matter, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the outcome. 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 case is currently before the 2^nd civil court of São Lourenço do Sul. On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the class action was granted in part and denied in part. Hearings with respect to the remaining claims, which relate to practices regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, commenced on June 27, 2012 and are continuing. The Company believes the remaining claims in the action to be without merit and is vigorously defending the action. Due to the broad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable. The Company has been named as one of several defendants in Hupan, et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., and Chalanuk, et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., which are distinct but related lawsuits respectively filed in New Castle County, Delaware state court on February 14, 2012 and April 5, 2012. The lawsuits were brought by approximately 130 individuals claiming to be tobacco farmers and their family members, all residing in Misiones Province, Argentina. The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages from the Company and other multinational defendants under U.S. and Argentine law for alleged injuries, including birth defects, purportedly caused by exposure to agricultural chemicals in connection with the production and cultivation of tobacco. The Company has not yet filed answers or other responsive pleadings in these actions, as to which the time for filing has been extended. Based on its preliminary investigation, the Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Because the Company has only recently been named in the lawsuits, the ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable. 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.

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 $6,518 and the total assessment including penalties and interest at June 30, 2012 is $15,943. 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 $27,261, 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 $24,052 at June 30, 2012. 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.

10. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

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 the aggregate. In respect of the investigation into practices in Italy, in October 2005 the EC announced the assessment of fines against the Company and its Italian subsidiaries of €24,000 (US $28,800) in the aggregate. 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 “ECJ”). On July 19, 2012, the ECJ denied the Company's appeal in joined cases C-628/10 and C-14/11 relating to a €1,800 fine imposed by the EC on one of the Company's Spanish subsidiaries, and as to which the EC further imposed joint and several parent company liability on the Company and such subsidiary's other shareholders (being a corporate predecessor of the Company, and a current subsidiary of the Company). The outcome of the remaining appeals, relating to a second case involving a different Spanish subsidiary regarding the remainder of the above-referenced €4,415 in fines, and the matters involving the Company and its Italian subsidiaries with respect to the above-referenced €24,000 in fines are uncertain as to both timing and results. A hearing before the ECJ relating to one of the appeals-pertaining to one of the Company's Italian subsidiaries which had been individually fined €3,990 (for which the Company was held jointly liable) has been scheduled for October 15, 2012. 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., the purchaser in 2004 of the Company's Italian subsidiary Dimon Italia, S.r.l., has asserted claims against subsidiaries of the Company arising out of that sale transaction 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 $9,277) plus interest and costs. A hearing for the disposition of this matter was held in December 2011 and the court's ruling is pending. Due to the uncertain legal interpretation in a foreign jurisdiction and the complexity of the matter, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the outcome.

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 case is currently before the 2^nd civil court of São Lourenço do Sul. On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the class action was granted in part and denied in part. Hearings with respect to the remaining claims, which relate to practices regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, commenced on June 27, 2012 and are continuing. The Company believes the remaining claims in the action to be without merit and is vigorously defending the action. Due to the broad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

The Company has been named as one of several defendants in Hupan, et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., and Chalanuk, et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc., et al., which are distinct but related lawsuits respectively filed in New Castle County, Delaware state court on February 14, 2012 and April 5, 2012. The lawsuits were brought by approximately 130 individuals claiming to be tobacco farmers and their family members, all residing in Misiones Province, Argentina. The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages from the Company and other multinational defendants under U.S. and Argentine law for alleged injuries, including birth defects, purportedly caused by exposure to agricultural chemicals in connection with the production and cultivation of tobacco. The Company has not yet filed answers or other responsive pleadings in these actions, as to which the time for filing has been extended. Based on its preliminary investigation, the Company believes the claims against it to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Because the Company has only recently been named in the lawsuits, the ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

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.