evidence.” Plaintiffs’ Brief at 18. According to Plaintiffs, “the Commission never even acknowledged testimony that clearly established that the industry itself refers to all stainless steel flat-rolled products as one single continuum under the denomination of ‘continuous mill plate’ or ‘CMP’ or ‘Hot Rolled Annealed and Pickled’ (‘HRAP’). Nor did the Commission address AST’s testimony that CMP can be used for similar applications regardless of whether it is thinner or thicker than 4.75 mm.” Id. at 18-19 (footnote omitted). The ITC, however, need not explicitly discuss every piece of record evidence, and the evidence cited by Plaintiffs does not show the Commission’s determination to be unsupported. See Nakajima All Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 469, 478, 744 F.Supp. 1168, 1175 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 16
holding that the itc is presumed  to have considered all pertinent information sought to be brought to its attention holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment recognizing that all things are presumed against a wrongdoer holding that a person is presumed to own all property that is titled in her name