Litigation	9 Months Ended
Oct. 29, 2011
Litigation [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Litigation The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the claims and suits individually and in the aggregate have not had a material effect on the Company’s operations or consolidated financial statements. In the third quarter of fiscal 2009, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency commenced an investigation into an undervaluation and corresponding underpayment of the customs duty owed by a vendor relating to a particular shipment of goods to the United States. The Company notified the vendor and has withheld certain funds from the vendor under contractual indemnification obligations to cover any potential costs, penalties or fees that may result from the investigation. The Company made a formal request for indemnification from the vendor but the request was refused. As a result, in December 2009, through the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, the Company commenced litigation against the vendor for breach of contract. The vendor filed counterclaims for payments it claims were owed by the Company. The case has been stayed by the district court pending the outcome of the U.S. Customs investigation. The Company believes that the funds it is withholding from the vendor will be sufficient to cover any costs or possible liabilities against the Company that may result from the investigation.

Litigation

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the claims and suits individually and in the aggregate have not had a material effect on the Company’s operations or consolidated financial statements.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2009, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency commenced an investigation into an undervaluation and corresponding underpayment of the customs duty owed by a vendor relating to a particular shipment of goods to the United States. The Company notified the vendor and has withheld certain funds from the vendor under contractual indemnification obligations to cover any potential costs, penalties or fees that may result from the investigation. The Company made a formal request for indemnification from the vendor but the request was refused. As a result, in December 2009, through the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, the Company commenced litigation against the vendor for breach of contract. The vendor filed counterclaims for payments it claims were owed by the Company. The case has been stayed by the district court pending the outcome of the U.S. Customs investigation. The Company believes that the funds it is withholding from the vendor will be sufficient to cover any costs or possible liabilities against the Company that may result from the investigation.