Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Warranty The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.1 million as of September 30, 2012 and April 1, 2012, respectively. Litigation In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company, alleging various environmental violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other public and private nuisance claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleges with regard to the Company that IDT “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants are liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of the Property due to the release of hazardous substances, and that Defendants violated their duty to prevent the release of such hazardous substances. In March 2012, the Company was served with and filed an answer to the Complaint, denying the various allegations in the Complaint, and in April 2012, the Company filed an amended answer to the Complaint, including a counterclaim against the Plaintiff. On August 15, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against the Company without prejudice. Moyer Products, Inc., another defendant, has cross-claimed against Defendants, including the Company, and thus the Company remains a defendant in this action. In September 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company that it identified the Company as “a generator of hazardous waste” that was sent to the Property. DTSC proposed that the Company, along with many other parties, enter into a corrective action consent agreement to conduct the Property investigation and cleanup. The Company plans to engage in discussions with the DTSC regarding its proposal, and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer Products, when Moyer Products is available to discuss such options. Because the case is at an early stage and no specific monetary demands have been made, it is not possible for us to estimate the range of potential losses. On May 14, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cox v. Guzy, et al., C.A. No. 7529, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Cox Complaint). The Cox Complaint names as defendants the members of the PLX Board of Directors, as well as PLX, IDT, Pinewood Acquisition Corp. (Pinewood) and Pinewood Merger Sub, LLC (Pinewood LLC), both of which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of IDT. The plaintiff alleges that PLX's directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX stockholders in connection with the Offer and the Merger, and were aided and abetted by PLX, IDT, Pinewood and Pinewood LLC. The Cox Complaint alleges that the Offer and the Merger involve an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices, and that defendants entered into the Offer and the Merger to benefit themselves personally. The Cox Complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Offer and the Merger, an award of damages, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief. On May 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On June 7, 2012, defendants filed oppositions to plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings. At the hearing, on June 8, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On June 19, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the putative class action lawsuit without prejudice. The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. As of September 30, 2012, the Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on the belief that liabilities, while possible, are not probable. Further, probable ranges of losses in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in any particular lawsuit. Accordingly, pending lawsuits, as well as potential future litigation with other companies, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty

The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.1 million as of September 30, 2012 and April 1, 2012, respectively.

Litigation

In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company, alleging various environmental violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other public and private nuisance claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleges with regard to the Company that IDT “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants are liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of the Property due to the release of hazardous substances, and that Defendants violated their duty to prevent the release of such hazardous substances. In March 2012, the Company was served with and filed an answer to the Complaint, denying the various allegations in the Complaint, and in April 2012, the Company filed an amended answer to the Complaint, including a counterclaim against the Plaintiff. On August 15, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against the Company without prejudice. Moyer Products, Inc., another defendant, has cross-claimed against Defendants, including the Company, and thus the Company remains a defendant in this action. In September 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company that it identified the Company as “a generator of hazardous waste” that was sent to the Property. DTSC proposed that the Company, along with many other parties, enter into a corrective action consent agreement to conduct the Property investigation and cleanup. The Company plans to engage in discussions with the DTSC regarding its proposal, and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer Products, when Moyer Products is available to discuss such options. Because the case is at an early stage and no specific monetary demands have been made, it is not possible for us to estimate the range of potential losses.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cox v. Guzy, et al., C.A. No. 7529, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Cox Complaint). The Cox Complaint names as defendants the members of the PLX Board of Directors, as well as PLX, IDT, Pinewood Acquisition Corp. (Pinewood) and Pinewood Merger Sub, LLC (Pinewood LLC), both of which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of IDT. The plaintiff alleges that PLX's directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX stockholders in connection with the Offer and the Merger, and were aided and abetted by PLX, IDT, Pinewood and Pinewood LLC. The Cox Complaint alleges that the Offer and the Merger involve an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices, and that defendants entered into the Offer and the Merger to benefit themselves personally. The Cox Complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Offer and the Merger, an award of damages, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief. On May 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On June 7, 2012, defendants filed oppositions to plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings. At the hearing, on June 8, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On June 19, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the putative class action lawsuit without prejudice.

The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. As of September 30, 2012, the Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on the belief that liabilities, while possible, are not probable. Further, probable ranges of losses in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in any particular lawsuit. Accordingly, pending lawsuits, as well as potential future litigation with other companies, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.