Global trade still occurs with tariffs and protection in place. Also in your example, that's not what the OP is postulating. Norway would have no reason to put tariffs on coffee beans and bananas as it has no reason to 'protect' its own production of them (it doesn't produce them).
A better example would be (to use an other Australian example), would be if the government kept protecting (either through tariffs or massive subsidies) domestic car production against overseas manufactured imports - noting that numerous international companies operated local production facilities when this sector of the economy was protected.
Australian car companies would be shielded from competition from other firms or incentives to adopt new production technology, and Australian consumers would pay more for cars. The number of people who buy cars is larger than the people who have stock in car companies or work in auto factories, so the cost of living would be slightly lower for most Australians.
Tariffs are essentially a tax on domestic consumers that redistribute consumer surplus toward special interests like Australian companies or the government's tax revenue.
The infant-industry argument (tariffs are needed to help a country build competitive advantage in steel, cars, etc) is one of the most common arguments for tariffs, but it's generally limited to policy options for post-colonial and/or developing country that are just shifting out of subsistence agriculture.
Some countries also have tariffs just as a source of tax revenue. If a poor or newly indecent country doesn't have the bureaucratic capacity to collect income tax data on every citizen, it can fund government's functions by taxing imported goods that arrive in a few port cities. In the 19th century the US got most of its tax revenue from tariffs levied on ships in a few ports like New York and Baltimore, but now US tax revenue comes from other sources.