COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingent Liabilities The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties In June 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) sent us a Notice of Action that proposed to classify certain of our imports as subject to anti-dumping duties pursuant to a 2010 anti-dumping duty (“AD”) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from China. A companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on the same product is in effect as well. The Notice of Action covered one entry of certain raw material steel mechanical tubing made in China and imported into the U.S. from Canada by our DynaEnergetics segment during 2015 for use in manufacturing perforating guns. In July 2015, we sent a response to U.S. Customs outlining the reasons our mechanical tubing imports do not fall within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China and should not be subject to anti-dumping duties. U.S. Customs proposed to take similar action with respect to other entries of this product and requested an approximately $1,100 cash deposit or bond for AD/CVD duties. In August 2015, we posted the bond of approximately $1,100 to U.S. Customs. Subsequently, U.S. Customs declined to conclude on the Company's assertion that the mechanical tubing the Company has been importing is not within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China. As a result, on September 25, 2015 the Company filed a request for a scope ruling with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce Department"). On February 15, 2016, the Company received the Commerce Department’s scope ruling, which determined certain imports, primarily used for gun carrier tubing, are included in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China and thus is subject to AD/CVD duties. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) related to the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. On February 7, 2017, CIT ruled on the appeal, remanding the scope ruling and ordering the Commerce Department to reconsider its position (the “Remand Order”). Under the Remand Order, the Commerce Department must issue its final remand determination on or before June 7, 2017, and such remand determination would be subject to the ongoing appeal with CIT. On December 27, 2016, we received notice from U.S. Customs that it may pursue penalties against us related to the AD/CVD issue and demanding tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in an amount of $3,049 , which are covered by our reserve. We filed a response to the notice on February 6, 2017 asserting our position that any decision to pursue penalties would be premature in light of the Remand Order and that penalties would not be appropriate under the applicable legal standards. On February 16, 2017, we received notice that U.S. Customs was assessing formal penalties in the amount of $14,783 . U.S. Customs also reasserted its demand for tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in the amount of $3,049 . We believe that this penalty assessment is premature and patently unreasonable in the face of the pending Remand Order and ongoing CIT appeal and that penalties are not appropriate under applicable legal standards. Further, even if penalties are found to be justified, we believe the amount of penalties asserted by U.S. Customs is unreasonable and subject to challenge on various grounds. We will vigorously defend against any imposition of penalties and seek a stay of penalty proceedings pending resolution of the remand determination and the ultimate resolution of the CIT appeal and any further appeals. We expect to submit a petition for relief and mitigation of penalties on or before May 17, 2017. We tendered $3,049 in AD amounts (“Tendered Amounts”) on March 6, 2017 into a suspense account pending ultimate resolution of the AD/CVD case. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 , the Company recorded $46 of interest on its reserve for AD/CVD duties, bringing the total reserved amount related to AD/CVD duties as of March 31, 2017 to $3,547 . The Tendered Amounts were applied to reduce the reserve. The Company will continue to incur legal defense costs and could also be subject to additional interest and penalties. Accruals for the potential penalties discussed above are not reflected in our financial statements as of March 31, 2017 as we do not believe they are probable at this time. Patent and Trademark Infringement On September 22, 2015, GEODynamics, Inc., a US-based oil and gas perforating equipment manufacturer based in Fort Worth, TX, filed a patent and trademark infringement action against DynaEnergetics US, Inc., (“DynaEnergetics”), a wholly owned subsidiary of DMC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) regarding alleged infringement of US Patent No. 9,080,431 granted on July 14, 2015 (“the ‘431 patent”) and a related US trademark for REACTIVE, alleging that DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX® shaped charges infringe the ‘431 patent and the trademark. DynaEnergetics, denying the validity and infringement of the ‘431 patent and trademark, has vigorously defended against this lawsuit. The '431 case went to trial in late March 2017, and on March 30, 2017, the jury found in favor of DynaEnergetics on all counts. A bench trial on related matters, including the trademark infringement action occurred on April 20, 2017, and the decision has been issued to invalidate GEODynamics' REACTIVE trademark. On July 1, 2016, GEODynamics filed a second patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of US Patent No. 8,544,563 (“the ‘563 patent”), also based on DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX™ shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the ‘563 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On September 20, 2016, DynaEnergetics instituted an Inter Parties Review (IPR) against the ‘563 patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), requesting that the ’563 patent be declared invalid by the USPTO. On March 17, 2017, DynaEnergetics' IPR request was granted by the USPTO. Trial on the '563 patent has been stayed pending the resolution of the IPR. We do not believe that the ‘563 patent or infringement claims based on the patent are valid, and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss on the '563 matter or in any appeals of the '431 decision. However, if the District Court or a jury determines that the patents are valid and that DynaEnergetics has infringed them, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected. We are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss, and we have not accrued for any such losses. Such an evaluation includes, among other things, a determination of the total number of infringing sales in the United States of the implicated systems; what a reasonable royalty, if any, might be under the circumstances; or, alternatively, the scope of damages and the relevant period for which damages would apply, if any. |