Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	13. Legal Proceedings — During the reporting period, there have been no significant developments in material pending or threatened legal proceedings to which the Company is a party, except as described below. Takings Action. On June 14, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, entitled “American Vanguard Corporation v. USEPA” (Case No. 16-694C) under which the Company seeks approximately $25,000 in damages from USEPA on the ground that that agency’s improper issuance of a Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order against the PCNB product line in August 2010 amounts to a taking without just compensation under the Tucker Act. The court in this matter denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim which was brought in September 2016. Since that time, fact discovery has been completed. Further, during the second quarter of 2018, expert witness discovery was substantially completed, and the Company expects that all remaining discovery will be completed during the third quarter of 2018. The Company is sole plaintiff in this matter and is seeking to recover damages; accordingly, no loss contingency is considered for this action. AMVAC v. EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which the U.S. Department of Justice (“the DoJ”) sought production of documents relating to the Company’s reimportation of depleted Thimet containers from Canada and Australia. The Company retained defense counsel and has substantially completed the document production during the course of which it incurred approximately $2,000 in legal costs and fees responding to this subpoena. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company received a request from the DoJ to interview several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. The government completed the interview of four corporate witnesses during the second quarter of 2018. Prosecutors have expressed a desire to talk about the matter in the near- to mid-term. At this stage, however, the DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter. Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. On March 21, 2018, the District Court in Tennessee ruled on the motion, granting the Company’s request to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (finding that the forum selection clauses in the relevant contracts applied), but denying the request to dismiss the matter. As per the California court’s rules, the parties are discussing a choice of mediator for a mediation to take place in the third quarter of 2018. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

13. Legal Proceedings — During the reporting period, there have been no significant developments in material pending or threatened legal proceedings to which the Company is a party, except as described below.

Takings Action. On June 14, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, entitled “American Vanguard Corporation v. USEPA” (Case No. 16-694C) under which the Company seeks approximately $25,000 in damages from USEPA on the ground that that agency’s improper issuance of a Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order against the PCNB product line in August 2010 amounts to a taking without just compensation under the Tucker Act. The court in this matter denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim which was brought in September 2016. Since that time, fact discovery has been completed. Further, during the second quarter of 2018, expert witness discovery was substantially completed, and the Company expects that all remaining discovery will be completed during the third quarter of 2018. The Company is sole plaintiff in this matter and is seeking to recover damages; accordingly, no loss contingency is considered for this action.

AMVAC v. EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which the U.S. Department of Justice (“the DoJ”) sought production of documents relating to the Company’s reimportation of depleted Thimet containers from Canada and Australia. The Company retained defense counsel and has substantially completed the document production during the course of which it incurred approximately $2,000 in legal costs and fees responding to this subpoena. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company received a request from the DoJ to interview several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. The government completed the interview of four corporate witnesses during the second quarter of 2018. Prosecutors have expressed a desire to talk about the matter in the near- to mid-term. At this stage, however, the DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter.

Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. On March 21, 2018, the District Court in Tennessee ruled on the motion, granting the Company’s request to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (finding that the forum selection clauses in the relevant contracts applied), but denying the request to dismiss the matter. As per the California court’s rules, the parties are discussing a choice of mediator for a mediation to take place in the third quarter of 2018. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.