One of the little things which all too many people misunderstand about economics and the economics of trade is that it is the imports which produce the benefits. The point and purpose of the entire process is that we, the consumers, can get our hands on those lovely things which foreigners make better or cheaper than we do. This is actually known, understood intellectually, among much of the ruling class around the world. But the political pressure is always to violate that basic concept and place barriers in the way of imports. Domestic producers are a concentrated political force, domestic consumers a dispersed one and concentration wins in politics.
Thus the basic rules written into the World Trade Organisation. It isn't that we're all supposed to favour foreign producers at all. Rather, it's that we are supposed to favour domestic consumers by not placing restrictions upon imports. At which point we have Japan threatening India with WTO action over restrictions India has put on the import of Japanese steel. This is a Good Thing and the people who will benefit from Japan winning will be Indian consumers:
As we see the stated concern is for the Japanese producers. But the winners will be Indian consumers. If cheap Japanese steel is allowed into India then Indian consumers will have to pay less for steel and anything made from it. This makes the Indian consumer richer, this is the point of tradeMinimum import prices are a particularly silly way to do this as well. The thinking behind it is that domestic producers can only produce at a price $x. Therefore, no one should be allowed to sell to domestic consumers at a price less than $x. Which is absurd. What if, entirely legitimately, no cheating nor subsidy involved, the foreign producer just uses a better process? So that their production cost is $y, y being less than x here? Why should Indian consumers be denied steel at $y just because the domestic producers are inefficient?
SOurce: Forbes.Com