Contingencies and Other Information	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
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 $5,908 and the total assessment including penalties and interest at September 30, 2013 is $15,323. 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 Brazilian State of Santa Catarina. This jurisdiction permits the sale or transfer of excess credits to third parties, however approval must be obtained from the tax authorities. The Company has an agreement with the state government regarding the amounts and timing of credits that can be sold. The tax credits have a carrying value of $13,075 at September 30, 2013, 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. 10. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION (continued) Non-Income Tax (continued) In 1969, the Brazilian government created a tax credit program that allowed companies to earn IPI tax credits (“IPI credits”) based on the value of their exports. The government began to phase out this program in 1979, which resulted in numerous lawsuits between taxpayers and the Brazilian government. The Company has a long legal history with respect to credits it earned while the IPI credit program was in effect. In 2001, the Company won a claim related to certain IPI credits it earned between 1983 and 1990. The Brazilian government appealed this decision and numerous rulings and appeals were rendered on behalf of both the government and the Company from 2001 through 2013. Because of this favorable ruling, the Company began to use these earned IPI credits to offset federal taxes in 2004 and 2005, until it received a Judicial Order to suspend the IPI offsetting in 2005. The value of the federal taxes offset in 2004 and 2005 was $24,142 and the Company established a reserve on these credits at the time of offsetting as they were not yet realizable due to the legal uncertainty that existed. Specifically, the Company extinguished other federal tax liabilities using IPI credits and recorded a liability in Pension, Postretirement and Other Long-Term Liabilities to reflect that the credits were not realizable at that time due to the prevalent legal uncertainty. On March 7, 2013, the Brazilian Supreme Court rendered a final decision in favor of the Company that recognized the validity of the IPI credits and secured the Company's right to benefit from the IPI credits earned from March 1983 to October 1990. This final decision expressly stated the Company has the right to the IPI credits. The Company estimated the total amount of the IPI credits to be approximately $94,316 at March 31, 2013. Since the March 2013 ruling definitively (without the government's ability to appeal) granted the Company the ownership of the IPI credits generated between 1983 and 1990 the Company believed the amount of IPI credits that were used to offset other federal taxes in 2004 and 2005 were realizable beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, and at March 31, 2013, the Company recorded the $24,142 IPI credits it realized in the Statements of Consolidated Operations in Other Income. No further benefit has been recognized pending the outcome of the judicial procedure to ascertain the final amount as those amounts have not yet been realized. Other In October 2001, the Directorate General for Competition 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 these investigations, in 2004 and 2005 the EC announced the assessment of fines against the Company and its Spanish and Italian subsidiaries. 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 with the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”). The majority of these appeals have previously been resolved, and the remaining two appeals with respect to these matters concluded during the quarter ended September 30, 2013, with the ECJ denying, on September 26, 2013, the appeals in cases C-679/11 P and C-668/11 relating to a Spanish subsidiary and the Company’s joint and several parent company liability. The Company previously fully recognized the impact of these fines and had previously paid the 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 a subsidiary 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$9,974) 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. 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.

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 $5,908 and the total assessment including penalties and interest at September 30, 2013 is $15,323. 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 Brazilian State of Santa Catarina. This jurisdiction permits the sale or transfer of excess credits to third parties, however approval must be obtained from the tax authorities. The Company has an agreement with the state government regarding the amounts and timing of credits that can be sold. The tax credits have a carrying value of $13,075 at September 30, 2013, 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.

10. CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

Non-Income Tax (continued)

In 1969, the Brazilian government created a tax credit program that allowed companies to earn IPI tax credits (“IPI credits”) based on the value of their exports. The government began to phase out this program in 1979, which resulted in numerous lawsuits between taxpayers and the Brazilian government. The Company has a long legal history with respect to credits it earned while the IPI credit program was in effect. In 2001, the Company won a claim related to certain IPI credits it earned between 1983 and 1990. The Brazilian government appealed this decision and numerous rulings and appeals were rendered on behalf of both the government and the Company from 2001 through 2013. Because of this favorable ruling, the Company began to use these earned IPI credits to offset federal taxes in 2004 and 2005, until it received a Judicial Order to suspend the IPI offsetting in 2005. The value of the federal taxes offset in 2004 and 2005 was $24,142 and the Company established a reserve on these credits at the time of offsetting as they were not yet realizable due to the legal uncertainty that existed. Specifically, the Company extinguished other federal tax liabilities using IPI credits and recorded a liability in Pension, Postretirement and Other Long-Term Liabilities to reflect that the credits were not realizable at that time due to the prevalent legal uncertainty. On March 7, 2013, the Brazilian Supreme Court rendered a final decision in favor of the Company that recognized the validity of the IPI credits and secured the Company's right to benefit from the IPI credits earned from March 1983 to October 1990. This final decision expressly stated the Company has the right to the IPI credits. The Company estimated the total amount of the IPI credits to be approximately $94,316 at March 31, 2013. Since the March 2013 ruling definitively (without the government's ability to appeal) granted the Company the ownership of the IPI credits generated between 1983 and 1990 the Company believed the amount of IPI credits that were used to offset other federal taxes in 2004 and 2005 were realizable beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, and at March 31, 2013, the Company recorded the $24,142 IPI credits it realized in the Statements of Consolidated Operations in Other Income. No further benefit has been recognized pending the outcome of the judicial procedure to ascertain the final amount as those amounts have not yet been

realized.

Other

In October 2001, the Directorate General for Competition 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 these investigations, in 2004 and 2005 the EC announced the assessment of fines against the Company and its Spanish and Italian subsidiaries. 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 with the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”). The majority of these appeals have previously been resolved, and the remaining two appeals with respect to these matters concluded during the quarter ended September 30, 2013, with the ECJ denying, on September 26, 2013, the appeals in cases C-679/11 P and C-668/11 relating to a Spanish subsidiary and the Company’s joint and several parent company liability. The Company previously fully recognized the impact of these fines and had previously paid the 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 a subsidiary 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$9,974) 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.

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.