You might see this erroneously described as "Countertrade" by one web source. But Countertrade is something different.
I think that most economists see the Law of Comparative Advantage as the ideal way for countries to trade with each other....
What you're suggesting seems to defy the 'law' so would probably just be classed as inefficient by a real economist.
This suggests that countries trade to their own comparative advantage
(e.g. Got a lot of capital but little labour? Then use your abundant capital to buy labour-intensive goods from countries with lots of labour but little capital).
The above is described by the Hecksher-Ohlin model.
But the H-O model ignores two-way trade and other anomalies.
" economic theory assumes "perfect Markets".
Unfortunately, that is never the case. There are always market distortions or perverse incentives that act to distort those perfect trade conditions .
Typically, comparative advantages include factors such as domestic tax differences; international trade tariffs or barriers; labour cost inequalities; or non-costed market externalities like environmental damage that make it appear CHEAP (using economic theory) to convert natural resources into consumer export tat and ship cheap Chinese crap around the world using ever-scarcer and ever more damaging fossil fuels.
[/gets off high horse].
See the Leontief Paradox
Also see "Reciprocal dumping" where bi-lateral trade is distorted by countries intentionally lowering their costs to dump goods in competing markets, thereby assisting their own export market and undercutting the target country's domestic market. Reciprocal dumping is when this occurs bi-laterally....
blah, blah, blah...
What a load of bolx.
Economics is mostly bunk and cannot be tested or falsified like the genuine sciences.
It's all just competing theories and conjecture.
None of it works perfectly in the real world and economists are no better at predicting economic outcomes than monkeys with a dartboard.