Commitments, Contingencies and Other	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other	Commitments, Contingencies and Other Legal proceedings: As previously disclosed, on August 10, 2005, following the conclusion of an audit of the Company conducted by auditors for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) during 2004 and 2005, U.S. Customs issued a report that asserts that certain commissions that the Company treated as “buying agents' commissions” (which are non-dutiable) should be treated as “selling agents’ commissions” and hence are dutiable. Subsequently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified the Company's legal counsel that a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices had been commenced as a result of the audit. In September 2007, U.S. Customs notified the Company that it had finalized its assessment of the underpaid duties at $1,400. The Company, with the advice of legal counsel, evaluated the liability in the case, including additional duties, interest and penalties, and believed that it was not likely to exceed $3,050 and, accordingly, a reserve for this amount was recorded as of December 31, 2009. The Company contested the conclusions of the U.S. Customs audit and filed a request for review and issuance of rulings thereon by U.S. Customs Headquarters, Office of Regulations and Rulings, under internal advice procedures. On September 20, 2010, U.S. Customs issued a ruling in the matter, concluding that the commissions paid by the Company pursuant to buying agreements entered into by the Company and one of its two buying agents under review were bona fide buying-agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. With respect to the second buying agent, U.S. Customs also ruled that beginning in February, 2002, commissions paid by the Company were bona fide buying agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. However, U.S. Customs found that the Company’s pre-2002 buying agreements with the second agent were legally insufficient to substantiate a buyer-buyer's agent relationship between the Company and the agent and that commissions paid to the second agent under such buying agreements, in fact, were dutiable. On the basis of the U.S. Customs ruling, the Company reevaluated the liability in the case and believes that it is not likely to exceed $1,248 and the reserve was reduced from $3,050 to such amount as of September 30, 2010. Note P – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued) On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleges that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claims that the Company owes $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty notice, the Company submitted that it owes no additional duty and, further, did not through negligence or gross negligence fail to pay any duty or engage in conduct amounting to either gross negligence or negligence. The Company requested that U.S. Customs withdraw its proposal to issue a notice of penalty and take no further adverse action against the Company. In the event that U.S. Customs was disinclined to withdraw the pre-penalty notice after review of the Company’s response, the Company further requested the opportunity to make an oral presentation to U.S. Customs prior to the issuance of a notice of penalty. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and made an oral presentation on behalf of the Company. Following the meeting, counsel submitted to U.S. Customs a letter and the Company’s check in the amount of $342, representing the Company’s Offer in Compromise of the proposed government claim. The Offer in Compromise was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. In the event that U.S. Customs decides to reject the Offer in Compromise, return the amount deposited, and issue a notice of penalty, the Company intends to file a petition for relief requesting a reduction of the level of culpability and mitigation of the penalty amount assessed. The maximum total amount of exposure, including penalties, related to this matter is approximately $1,700 for which the Company has accrued $1,248. Information regarding certain other specific legal proceedings in which the Company is involved is contained in Part 1, Item 3, and in Note O to the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. Unless otherwise indicated in this report, all proceedings discussed in the earlier report which are not indicated therein as having been concluded, remain outstanding as of June 30, 2014. The Company has been named as a defendant in certain other lawsuits in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, the liabilities, if any, resulting from these matters should not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. It is the policy of management to disclose the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of recorded amounts.

Commitments, Contingencies and Other

Legal proceedings:

As previously disclosed, on August 10, 2005, following the conclusion of an audit of the Company conducted by auditors for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) during 2004 and 2005, U.S. Customs issued a report that asserts that certain commissions that the Company treated as “buying agents' commissions” (which are non-dutiable) should be treated as “selling agents’ commissions” and hence are dutiable. Subsequently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified the Company's legal counsel that a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices had been commenced as a result of the audit. In September 2007, U.S. Customs notified the Company that it had finalized its assessment of the underpaid duties at $1,400. The Company, with the advice of legal counsel, evaluated the liability in the case, including additional duties, interest and penalties, and believed that it was not likely to exceed $3,050 and, accordingly, a reserve for this amount was recorded as of December 31, 2009. The Company contested the conclusions of the U.S. Customs audit and filed a request for review and issuance of rulings thereon by U.S. Customs Headquarters, Office of Regulations and Rulings, under internal advice procedures. On September 20, 2010, U.S. Customs issued a ruling in the matter, concluding that the commissions paid by the Company pursuant to buying agreements entered into by the Company and one of its two buying agents under review were bona fide buying-agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. With respect to the second buying agent, U.S. Customs also ruled that beginning in February, 2002, commissions paid by the Company were bona fide buying agent commissions and, therefore, were non-dutiable. However, U.S. Customs found that the Company’s pre-2002 buying agreements with the second agent were legally insufficient to substantiate a buyer-buyer's agent relationship between the Company and the agent and that commissions paid to the second agent under such buying agreements, in fact, were dutiable. On the basis of the U.S. Customs ruling, the Company reevaluated the liability in the case and believes that it is not likely to exceed $1,248 and the reserve was reduced from $3,050 to such amount as of September 30, 2010.

Note P – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued)

On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleges that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claims that the Company owes $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty notice, the Company submitted that it owes no additional duty and, further, did not through negligence or gross negligence fail to pay any duty or engage in conduct amounting to either gross negligence or negligence. The Company requested that U.S. Customs withdraw its proposal to issue a notice of penalty and take no further adverse action against the Company. In the event that U.S. Customs was disinclined to withdraw the pre-penalty notice after review of the Company’s response, the Company further requested the opportunity to make an oral presentation to U.S. Customs prior to the issuance of a notice of penalty. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and made an oral presentation on behalf of the Company. Following the meeting, counsel submitted to U.S. Customs a letter and the Company’s check in the amount of $342, representing the Company’s Offer in Compromise of the proposed government claim. The Offer in Compromise was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. In the event that U.S. Customs decides to reject the Offer in Compromise, return the amount deposited, and issue a notice of penalty, the Company intends to file a petition for relief requesting a reduction of the level of culpability and mitigation of the penalty amount assessed. The maximum total amount of exposure, including penalties, related to this matter is approximately $1,700 for which the Company has accrued $1,248.

Information regarding certain other specific legal proceedings in which the Company is involved is contained in Part 1, Item 3, and in Note O to the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. Unless otherwise indicated in this report, all proceedings discussed in the earlier report which are not indicated therein as having been concluded, remain outstanding as of June 30, 2014.

The Company has been named as a defendant in certain other lawsuits in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, the liabilities, if any, resulting from these matters should not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. It is the policy of management to disclose the amount or range of reasonably possible losses in excess of recorded amounts.