Commitments, Contingencies and Other	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other	Commitments, Contingencies and Other Legal proceedings: 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 commenced a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices 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, recorded a liability for this amount 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, 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 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 and reduced its potential liability in the case from $3,050 to $1,248 as of September 30, 2010. On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleged that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claimed that the Company owed $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty Note N – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued) notice, the Company submitted that it owed 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. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and, 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, which was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. On June 9, 2017, U.S. Customs issued its decision indicating that the Company’s Offer in Compromise in the amount of $342 was accepted by U.S. Customs in full and complete settlement of all U.S. Customs civil claims and potential civil claims against the Company for unpaid duties and proposed monetary penalties assessed against the Company. As a result, excess reserve of $906 was reversed in the second quarter of 2017. 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:

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 commenced a formal investigation of the Company’s importing practices 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, recorded a liability for this amount 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, 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 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 and reduced its potential liability in the case from $3,050 to $1,248 as of September 30, 2010.

On November 21, 2011, U.S. Customs issued a pre-penalty notice to the Company in which it alleged that gross negligence by the Company resulted in an underpayment of duties with respect to certain pre-2002 buying agreements and claimed that the Company owed $342 as an additional duty and $1,367 in monetary penalties. In its February 16, 2012 response to the pre-penalty

Note N – Commitments, Contingencies and Other (continued)

notice, the Company submitted that it owed 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. On June 26, 2014, the Company’s counsel met with U.S. Customs officials and, 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, which was filed without any admission or acceptance by the Company with respect to the proposed claim. On June 9, 2017, U.S. Customs issued its decision indicating that the Company’s Offer in Compromise in the amount of $342 was accepted by U.S. Customs in full and complete settlement of all U.S. Customs civil claims and potential civil claims against the Company for unpaid duties and proposed monetary penalties assessed against the Company. As a result, excess reserve of $906 was reversed in the second quarter of 2017.

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.