Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	(20) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters U.S. Government Investigations In June 2012, certain officers and employees of the Company received subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) seeking certain documents and records relating to our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Although the EDNY subpoenas make no specific allegations, we believe the subpoenas relate to a grand jury investigation stemming from our CEO's contacts with a scientific attaché to the Israeli Purchasing Mission in the United States who our CEO met in connection with the sale of our equipment to the State of Israel during the 1980's. This scientific attaché was later alleged to have conducted intelligence operations in the U.S. In August 2012, we were informed by the U.S. government that our CEO's security clearance was suspended. In order to maintain our qualification for government contracts requiring facility security clearance, we have made certain internal organizational realignments. These changes restrict access to classified information to other Comtech senior executives, management and other employees who maintain the required level of clearance. Separately, in connection with an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into trading in securities of CPI International, Inc. (“CPI”), we and our CEO, and other persons, have received subpoenas for documents from the SEC concerning transactions in CPI stock by our CEO and other persons (including one subsidiary employee). Our CEO purchased CPI stock in November 2010 which was after the September 2010 termination of our May 2010 agreement to acquire CPI. We and our CEO are cooperating with the U.S. government regarding the above matters. The independent members of our Board of Directors are monitoring these matters with the assistance of independent counsel. The outcome of any investigation is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to predict. However, based on our work to date in respect of the subpoenas in each matter, we do not believe that it is likely that either investigation will result in a legal proceeding against our CEO or the Company. If either of these investigations results in a legal proceeding, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) Audit U.S. government agencies, including the DCAA, routinely audit costs and performance on contracts, as well as accounting and general business practices. Based on the results of the audit, the U.S. government may adjust contract related costs and fees, including allocated indirect costs. In addition, under U.S. government purchasing regulations, some of our costs may not be reimbursable. Until such audits are completed, the ultimate profit on these contracts cannot be determined. In May 2011, we were notified that our BFT-1 contract, which was awarded to us in fiscal 2008, was selected for a post award audit by the DCAA. We received total orders against this contract, which expired December 31, 2011, of $376,987,000. A post award audit (sometimes referred to as a Truth in Negotiations Act or “TINA” audit) generally focuses on whether the contractor disclosed current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data in the contract negotiation process pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). In connection with this audit, in January 2012, the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) advised us that the fiscal 2008 award of the BFT-1 contract triggered full coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”), which are a set of specialized rules and standards that the U.S. government uses for determining costs on large, negotiated contracts. The DCMA requested that we submit an initial CAS disclosure statement that would describe our cost accounting practices. In March 2012, we were awarded a new three-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) BFT-1 sustainment contract with the U.S. Army to provide the same type of commercial equipment and services that we previously provided under the aforementioned BFT-1 contract. This new contract incorporates specific FAR Part 12 clauses, which specify that the equipment provided under the contract is commercial (as that term is defined in the FAR). We believe that the commercial designation in our new contract also applies to the original BFT-1 contract and that our original BFT-1 contract was not subject to full coverage under CAS. On November 26, 2012, the DCMA informed us that the DCAA has agreed with us and has determined that both our original BFT-1 contract and our new BFT-1 sustainment contract (including our mobile satellite transceivers), are subject to commercial pricing and commercial clauses. The DCMA also noted that, since the cost portion of the referenced contracts were less than $50,000,000, the contracts (including the pricing of our mobile satellite transceivers) are only subject to modified CAS. As such, the DCMA withdrew its request for an initial CAS disclosure statement. On November 26, 2012, the DCAA separately informed us that it wished to schedule an exit conference to discuss the findings of its post award audit. We expect this exit conference to take place prior to January 31, 2013. Although the DCMA determination that the original BFT-1 contract was subject to modified CAS appears to have eliminated certain pricing and costing matters relating to the post award audit, other matters may be raised by the DCAA at the exit conference. As such, the outcome of the DCAA audit is difficult to predict. If it is ultimately determined that a cost or price adjustment for our BFT-1 contract is appropriate, we may be required to refund monies to the U.S. government, with interest. These amounts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Other Proceedings There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions, which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

(20) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

U.S. Government Investigations

In June 2012, certain officers and employees of the Company received subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) seeking certain documents and records relating to our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Although the EDNY subpoenas make no specific allegations, we believe the subpoenas relate to a grand jury investigation stemming from our CEO's contacts with a scientific attaché to the Israeli Purchasing Mission in the United States who our CEO met in connection with the sale of our equipment to the State of Israel during the 1980's. This scientific attaché was later alleged to have conducted intelligence operations in the U.S. In August 2012, we were informed by the U.S. government that our CEO's security clearance was suspended. In order to maintain our qualification for government contracts requiring facility security clearance, we have made certain internal organizational realignments. These changes restrict access to classified information to other Comtech senior executives, management and other employees who maintain the required level of clearance.

Separately, in connection with an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into trading in securities of CPI International, Inc. (“CPI”), we and our CEO, and other persons, have received subpoenas for documents from the SEC concerning transactions in CPI stock by our CEO and other persons (including one subsidiary employee). Our CEO purchased CPI stock in November 2010 which was after the September 2010 termination of our May 2010 agreement to acquire CPI.

We and our CEO are cooperating with the U.S. government regarding the above matters. The independent members of our Board of Directors are monitoring these matters with the assistance of independent counsel.

The outcome of any investigation is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to predict. However, based on our work to date in respect of the subpoenas in each matter, we do not believe that it is likely that either investigation will result in a legal proceeding against our CEO or the Company. If either of these investigations results in a legal proceeding, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) Audit

U.S. government agencies, including the DCAA, routinely audit costs and performance on contracts, as well as accounting and general business practices. Based on the results of the audit, the U.S. government may adjust contract related costs and fees, including allocated indirect costs. In addition, under U.S. government purchasing regulations, some of our costs may not be reimbursable. Until such audits are completed, the ultimate profit on these contracts cannot be determined.

In May 2011, we were notified that our BFT-1 contract, which was awarded to us in fiscal 2008, was selected for a post award audit by the DCAA. We received total orders against this contract, which expired December 31, 2011, of $376,987,000.

A post award audit (sometimes referred to as a Truth in Negotiations Act or “TINA” audit) generally focuses on whether the contractor disclosed current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data in the contract negotiation process pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”).

In connection with this audit, in January 2012, the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) advised us that the fiscal 2008 award of the BFT-1 contract triggered full coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”), which are a set of specialized rules and standards that the U.S. government uses for determining costs on large, negotiated contracts. The DCMA requested that we submit an initial CAS disclosure statement that would describe our cost accounting practices.

In March 2012, we were awarded a new three-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) BFT-1 sustainment contract with the U.S. Army to provide the same type of commercial equipment and services that we previously provided under the aforementioned BFT-1 contract. This new contract incorporates specific FAR Part 12 clauses, which specify that the equipment provided under the contract is commercial (as that term is defined in the FAR). We believe that the commercial designation in our new contract also applies to the original BFT-1 contract and that our original BFT-1 contract was not subject to full coverage under CAS.

On November 26, 2012, the DCMA informed us that the DCAA has agreed with us and has determined that both our original BFT-1 contract and our new BFT-1 sustainment contract (including our mobile satellite transceivers), are subject to commercial pricing and commercial clauses. The DCMA also noted that, since the cost portion of the referenced contracts were less than $50,000,000, the contracts (including the pricing of our mobile satellite transceivers) are only subject to modified CAS. As such, the DCMA withdrew its request for an initial CAS disclosure statement.

On November 26, 2012, the DCAA separately informed us that it wished to schedule an exit conference to discuss the findings of its post award audit. We expect this exit conference to take place prior to January 31, 2013. Although the DCMA determination that the original BFT-1 contract was subject to modified CAS appears to have eliminated certain pricing and costing matters relating to the post award audit, other matters may be raised by the DCAA at the exit conference. As such, the outcome of the DCAA audit is difficult to predict. If it is ultimately determined that a cost or price adjustment for our BFT-1 contract is appropriate, we may be required to refund monies to the U.S. government, with interest. These amounts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Other Proceedings

There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions, which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.