3. That by reason of the absence of information with respect to the actual quantities of each variety produced in the United States, the final American and Canadian unit figures used for comparison were arrived at by assuming that the 137 domestic varieties were produced in the same proportions in the United States as the similar varieties were produced in Canada.

4. That the data with respect to the capital invested and employed in the business in the two countries are not sufficiently adequate and coextensive to permit trustworthy calculations of the item of investment charge for comparison. In the judgment of two commissioners, the inadequacy of such investment data makes it necessary for a sound statistical comparison, to exclude the item of investment from both the Canadian and the domestic production costs. 5. Imports of paintbrush handles from Canada do not enter the general channels of trade in the United States, but are manufactured for an American corporation, the Rubberset Co., of Newark, N. J., by its Canadian subsidiary, the Rubberset Co. (Ltd.), and are imported by the American corporation for its own use in the further manufacture of brushes. The American Rubberset Co. has no handle factory in this country but buys handles from domestic manufacturers in order to supplement the lines of handles imported by it from Canada. The domestic handle manufacturers, on the other hand, produce for the general trade, largely upon special orders for stated quantities according to specifications laid down by the domestic manufacturers of brushes. In practice, the production of the domestic handle factories, therefore, has a wider range in styles and sizes, having to cover practically all varieties of handles in order to meet the requirements of domestic brush manufacturers, whether a particular order happens to be for a larger or smaller quantity of a specified style or size.

V. The decrease in duty necessary to equalize the difference in costs of production of paintbrush handles in the United States and in the principal competing country, within the limit provided in section 315 of the tariff act of 1922, is a reduction of the existing duty of 33 per cent to an ad valorem duty of 16% per cent.

In reporting the results of this investigation under section 315 of the tariff act of 1922, this summary, as in all other investigations, is confined to a statement of the findings of fact which appear to be warranted by the data secured in the course of the investigation without recommendation or expression of opinion with regard to the advisability or nonadvisability of a change in the existing duty. Respectfully submitted.

ALFRED P. DENNIS, Acting Chairman.
HENRY H. GLASSIE,

NOTE.-Commissioners Marvin and Costigan, who were absent on official business in Europe for the commission, did not participate in the preparation of the foregoing report.

APPENDIX A

TABLE A.-Costs of material in the three United States paintbrush handle factories expressed as ratios to the corresponding material costs in the Canadian factory, by styles and sizes of handles, 1922

TABLE B.-Labor costs in the three United States paintbrush handle factories expressed as ratios to the corresponding labor costs in the Canadian factory, by styles and sizes of handles, 1922

TABLE C.-Overhead costs in the three United States paintbrush handle factores expressed as ratios to the corresponding overhead costs in the Canadian factory, by styles and sizes of handles, 1922

[Costs do not include interest on owner's invested capital or transportation charges. Canadian cost=100)|

NOTE. As explained page 4, these costs include on small amounts of interest actually paid.

TABLE D.-Total costs in the three United States paintbrush handle factories expressed as ratios to the corresponding total costs of the Canadian factory, by styles and sizes of handles, 1922

[Costs do not include interest on owner's invested capital or transportation charges. Canadian costs=100]

NOTE. As explained on page 4, these costs include small amounts of interest actually paid.