Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	*Note 19—Commitments and Contingencies* At June 30, 2015, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. The outcome of these legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty; however, management, based upon advice from legal counsel, believes such actions are either without merit or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the “Kim Plaintiff”) against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “Court”) seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the “Class Period”). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman’s financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees’ Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by “knowingly failing to disclose “significant problems” relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory” prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when “Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008,” that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman’s true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained before Judge Richard W. Roberts. On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and, on June 23, 2015, the district court’s ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals. Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. Patrick Russell (the “Russell Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings Plan’s assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was “no longer a prudent investment for the Participants’ retirement savings.” The amended complaint further claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings Plan’s fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan’s fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan’s participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had “suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Savings Plan’s Participants.” On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22, 2013, the District Court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Harman. The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on September 30, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court. Infotainment Supply Arrangements We have arrangements with our infotainment customers to provide products that meet predetermined technical specifications and delivery dates. In the event that we do not satisfy the performance obligations under these arrangements, we may be required to indemnify the customer. We accrue for any loss that we expect to incur under these arrangements when that loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. For the year ended June 30, 2015, we incurred $30.5 million of costs relating to delayed delivery of product to an infotainment customer. For the year ended June 30, 2014, we recognized gain of $6.1 million relating to losses that we no longer expect to incur. We did not incur any losses under these arrangements in fiscal year 2013. An inability to meet performance obligations on infotainment platforms to be delivered in future periods could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition in future periods. Customs NAFTA Preferential Tariff Treatment We submitted a prior disclosure (“Prior Disclosure”) related to our compliance with U.S. Customs regulations for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. As we implemented our corrective actions, we submitted the updates to the Prior Disclosure quantifying our compliance through December 31, 2013. This Prior Disclosure and the related updates address several areas of review including our compliance with (a) the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), (b) classification, (c) quantity and (d) valuation, as defined by U.S. Customs. We regularly import goods that qualify for preferential duty claims pursuant to NAFTA. NAFTA requires that an importer have a valid NAFTA Certificate of Origin in its possession at the time it makes a preferential duty claim. Our evaluation of our compliance with the NAFTA area of review had determined that a number of preferential duty claims were made without first obtaining the required NAFTA certificate. However, NAFTA permits discretion to waive this requirement if the imported goods qualify for NAFTA preferential tariff treatment. We were advised in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 that U.S. Customs has changed its internal practice and intended to restrict the exercise of this discretion in this area. In June 2014, we submitted our final Prior Disclosure supplement. In December 2014, U.S. Customs completed its review of our Prior Disclosure and in January 2015, issued a report which concluded that our Prior Disclosure methodology was reasonable and sufficient and took no exceptions to the results. In June 2015, U.S. Customs issued a letter informing us that it had determined that our request for prior disclosure treatment was valid, no penalty was applicable and the case is now closed. Approximately $12.0 million of payments were remitted during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. No further payments have been made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. During the year ended June 30, 2015, we reduced our estimated accrual by approximately $17.3 million within Costs of sales in our Consolidated Income Statement, as we have no further potential liability related to this Prior Disclosure.

Note 19—Commitments and Contingencies

At June 30, 2015, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. The outcome of these legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty; however, management, based upon advice from legal counsel, believes such actions are either without merit or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the “Kim Plaintiff”) against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “Court”) seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the “Class Period”). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman’s financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees’ Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by “knowingly failing to disclose “significant problems” relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory” prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when “Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008,” that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman’s true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008.

On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and, on June 23, 2015, the district court’s ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al.

Patrick Russell (the “Russell Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings Plan’s assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was “no longer a prudent investment for the Participants’ retirement savings.” The amended complaint further claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings Plan’s fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan’s fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan’s participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had “suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Savings Plan’s Participants.”

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22, 2013, the District Court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Harman. The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on September 30, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court.

Infotainment Supply Arrangements

We have arrangements with our infotainment customers to provide products that meet predetermined technical specifications and delivery dates. In the event that we do not satisfy the performance obligations under these arrangements, we may be required to indemnify the customer. We accrue for any loss that we expect to incur under these arrangements when that loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. For the year ended June 30, 2015, we incurred $30.5 million of costs relating to delayed delivery of product to an infotainment customer. For the year ended June 30, 2014, we recognized gain of $6.1 million relating to losses that we no longer expect to incur. We did not incur any losses under these arrangements in fiscal year 2013. An inability to meet performance obligations on infotainment platforms to be delivered in future periods could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition in future periods.

Customs NAFTA Preferential Tariff Treatment

We submitted a prior disclosure (“Prior Disclosure”) related to our compliance with U.S. Customs regulations for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. As we implemented our corrective actions, we submitted the updates to the Prior Disclosure quantifying our compliance through December 31, 2013. This Prior Disclosure and the related updates address several areas of review including our compliance with (a) the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), (b) classification, (c) quantity and (d) valuation, as defined by U.S. Customs.

We regularly import goods that qualify for preferential duty claims pursuant to NAFTA. NAFTA requires that an importer have a valid NAFTA Certificate of Origin in its possession at the time it makes a preferential duty claim. Our evaluation of our compliance with the NAFTA area of review had determined that a number of preferential duty claims were made without first obtaining the required NAFTA certificate. However, NAFTA permits discretion to waive this requirement if the imported goods qualify for NAFTA preferential tariff treatment. We were advised in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 that U.S. Customs has changed its internal practice and intended to restrict the exercise of this discretion in this area. In June 2014, we submitted our final Prior Disclosure supplement. In December 2014, U.S. Customs completed its review of our Prior Disclosure and in January 2015, issued a report which concluded that our Prior Disclosure methodology was reasonable and sufficient and took no exceptions to the results. In June 2015, U.S. Customs issued a letter informing us that it had determined that our request for prior disclosure treatment was valid, no penalty was applicable and the case is now closed. Approximately $12.0 million of payments were remitted during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. No further payments have been made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. During the year ended June 30, 2015, we reduced our estimated accrual by approximately $17.3 million within Costs of sales in our Consolidated Income Statement, as we have no further potential liability related to this Prior Disclosure.