Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	14. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, except as described below. 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 (“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 completed production of documents. During the fourth quarter of 2018, government attorneys interviewed four individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. Further, in March 2019, government attorneys identified four more individuals whom they wish to interview in the near future. At this stage, 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. Takings Case. 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 sought approximately $30,000 in damages from USEPA on the ground that that agency’s 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. Fact and expert discovery was completed, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the merits. In January 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment, while granting that of the government, finding that the Company’s PCNB business did not amount to a cognizable property interest in the context of the Tucker Act. In February 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court’s decision was based upon an erroneous understanding of the facts. In March 2019, the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the matter has been dismissed without prejudice. The Company is considering the possibility of appealing the trial court decision. In as far as it is the claimant in the action, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

14. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, except as described below.

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 (“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 completed production of documents. During the fourth quarter of 2018, government attorneys interviewed four individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. Further, in March 2019, government attorneys identified four more individuals whom they wish to interview in the near future. At this stage, 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.

Takings Case. 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 sought approximately $30,000 in damages from USEPA on the ground that that agency’s 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. Fact and expert discovery was completed, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the merits. In January 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment, while granting that of the government, finding that the Company’s PCNB business did not amount to a cognizable property interest in the context of the Tucker Act. In February 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court’s decision was based upon an erroneous understanding of the facts. In March 2019, the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the matter has been dismissed without prejudice. The Company is considering the possibility of appealing the trial court decision. In as far as it is the claimant in the action, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter.