Infant Industry Argument:

The infant industry argument for trade protection has been frequently used to justify trade protection, especially in the context of developing countries. The logic being, manufacturing firms in poor countries cannot with stand competition  from more mature firms based  in  industrialised nations, unless they are granted trade protection in their initial stages of development.

You  should note that using  the  infant industry argument to justify trade protection amounts  to  adopting a second best policy.  In  this  case there  is a domestic market failure, which prevents infant industries from attaining their full potential. This domestic market failure could arise due to imperfections in the labour market (labour market rigidities), capital market (underdeveloped financial markets) or due to a flawed system of property rights (e.g., lack of patent regime).

A negative aspect of trade protection  is that very often,  the  absence of competition tends  to breed  inefficient domestic firms. Also a regime  of discretionary controls  like  import licenses  and quotas promote wasteful rent-seeking activities which result in welfare losses.

Further,  in principle,  the protection granted should  be  temporary and  is normally to be withdrawn once firms mature and are able to compete in the world market. However,  in practice  it  is extremely  difficult  to  withdraw protection, once granted, generating a "perpetual infancy syndrome".