LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
LITIGATION	Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION The Company is a party to routine legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of business. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss, the Company believes at this time that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. However, due to the difficult nature of predicting unresolved and future legal claims, the Company cannot anticipate or predict the material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows as a result of efforts to comply with or its liabilities pertaining to legal judgments. Presently, Titan is engaged in the following material legal proceeding: In early January 2016, Titan, along with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worker International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the DOC and the ITC alleging that imported off-the-road tires from India and Sri Lanka and wheel and tire assemblies from China were being dumped and/or subsidized and were a cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Both the DOC and the ITC initiated investigations against India and Sri Lanka, but the ITC did not recommend pursuing the investigation into wheel and tire assemblies from China. On January 4, 2017, the DOC made a final affirmative determination in both the Indian and Sri Lankan countervailing duty cases, and subsequently made an amended affirmative final determination of dumping on imports from India for all but one company. Also on January 4, 2017, the ITC conducted the final injury hearing on Titan and the United Steel Workers’ petitions. In February 2017, the ITC determined, by unanimous vote, that the domestic industry producing certain off-the-road tires was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports from India and Sri Lanka and "dumped" imports from India. On March 9, 2017, countervailing duty orders on imports of off-the-road tires from India and Sri Lanka and an anti-dumping duty order on such tires from India (with the exception of imports from one company) were published in the Federal Register by DOC. Following the ITC's February 28, 2017, determination, importers of products covered by the DOC's countervailing duty orders and antidumping order are required to post cash deposits equal to the countervailing duty amounts identified in the orders. Two of Titan’s subsidiaries are currently involved in litigation concerning environmental laws and regulations. In October 2010, the United States of America, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed a complaint against Dico, Inc. (Dico) and Titan Tire Corporation (Titan Tire) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, wherein the EPA sought civil penalties, punitive damages, and response costs against Dico and Titan Tire pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). In June 2015, Titan Tire and Dico, Inc. appealed the U.S. District Court’s order granting the EPA’s motion for summary judgment that found Dico and Titan Tire liable for civil penalties and response costs for violating CERCLA and Dico liable for civil penalties and punitive damages for violating an EPA Administrative Order. In December 2015, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s summary judgment order with respect to “arranger” liability for Titan Tire and Dico under CERCLA and the imposition of punitive damages against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order, but affirmed the summary judgment order imposing civil penalties in the amount of $1.62 million against Dico for violating the EPA Administrative Order violation. The case was remanded to the District Court for a new trial on the remaining issues. The trial occurred in April 2017. On September 5, 2017, the District Court issued an order: (a) concluding Titan Tire and Dico arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a); (b) holding Titan Tire and Dico jointly and severally liable for $5.45 million in response costs previously incurred and reported by the United States relating to the alleged violation, including enforcement costs and attorney’s fees; and (c) awarding a declaratory judgment holding Titan Tire and Dico jointly and severally liable for all additional response costs previously incurred but not yet reported or to be incurred in the future, including enforcement costs and attorney’s fees. The District Court also held Dico liable for $5.45 million in punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(c)(3) for violating a unilateral administrative order. The punitive damages award does not apply to Titan Tire. The Company accrued a contingent liability of $6.5 million, representing $5.45 million in costs incurred by the United States and $1.05 million of additional response costs, for this order. Titan Tire and Dico are appealing the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Notice of Appeal was filed on November 2, 2017 and an appeal bond was secured to stay the execution of any collection actions on the underlying judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.