Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	13. In 2011, we were notified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("U.S. Customs") that certain film products exported by Terphane to the U.S. since November 6, 2008 could be subject to duties associated with an antidumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. We contested the applicability of these antidumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and we filed a request with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. On January 8, 2013, Commerce issued a scope ruling confirming that the films are not subject to the order, provided that Terphane can establish to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs that the performance enhancing layer on those films is greater than 0.00001 inches thick. The films at issue are manufactured to specifications that exceed that threshold. On February 6, 2013, certain U.S. producers of PET film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the scope ruling from Commerce. If U.S. Customs ultimately were to require the collection of antidumping duties because Commerce's scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Terphane Purchase Agreement.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

13. In 2011, we were notified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("U.S. Customs") that certain film products exported by Terphane to the U.S. since November 6, 2008 could be subject to duties associated with an antidumping duty order on imported PET films from Brazil. We contested the applicability of these antidumping duties to the films exported by Terphane, and we filed a request with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") for clarification about whether the film products at issue are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. On January 8, 2013, Commerce issued a scope ruling confirming that the films are not subject to the order, provided that Terphane can establish to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs that the performance enhancing layer on those films is greater than 0.00001 inches thick. The films at issue are manufactured to specifications that exceed that threshold. On February 6, 2013, certain U.S. producers of PET film filed a summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade to appeal the scope ruling from Commerce. If U.S. Customs ultimately were to require the collection of antidumping duties because Commerce's scope ruling was overturned on appeal, or otherwise, indemnifications for related liabilities are specifically provided for under the Terphane Purchase Agreement.