<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"1.  What is the reason for the joint assessment of Mexico, the Philippines and Thailand in respect of imports of non-refillable gas lighters? What specific (economic) evidence is needed to prove that imports from these countries really are competing significantly with each other and with similar EU products in order to assess the cumulative effect of these imports?  2.  Given the differences in the definition of """"""""damage"""""""" in a preliminary inquiry and in the original inquiries, is cumulation permitted by law, in particular if the product from one of the sources is stable and has no direct impact on European industry?  3.  When it assesses price competition, how does the Commission take account of the obvious major differences between the products in respect of quality and reputation?  4.  If imports from many different countries are able, within a short space of time, to take the place of imports from those countries which are affected by the anti-dumping measures, if smuggling is not controlled and competition and causality are negligible, why would it be in the interests of the EU to adhere to the existing anti-dumping measures for lighters from individual countries?  5.  In the light of these circumstances, why does the Commission feel it is necessary to close off part of the EC market and to deprive the European consumer of a free choice between products from different countries through anti-dumping duties or undertakings in respect of a review of prices?"
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [1]. </s>
1.  What is the reason for the joint assessment of Mexico, the Philippines and Thailand in respect of imports of non-refillable gas lighters? What specific (economic) evidence is needed to prove that imports from these countries really are competing significantly with each other and with similar EU products in order to assess the cumulative effect of these imports?  2.  Given the differences in the definition of """"""""damage"""""""" in a preliminary inquiry and in the original inquiries, is cumulation permitted by law, in particular if the product from one of the sources is stable and has no direct impact on European industry?  3.  When it assesses price competition, how does the Commission take account of the obvious major differences between the products in respect of quality and reputation?  4.  If imports from many different countries are able, within a short space of time, to take the place of imports from those countries which are affected by the anti-dumping measures, if smuggling is not controlled and competition and causality are negligible, why would it be in the interests of the EU to adhere to the existing anti-dumping measures for lighters from individual countries?  5.  In the light of these circumstances, why does the Commission feel it is necessary to close off part of the EC market and to deprive the European consumer of a free choice between products from different countries through anti-dumping duties or undertakings in respect of a review of prices?