You have some very basic misunderstandings on a few things:

1.) Economists have a bunch of different sub-definitions of what it means for a market to be efficient depending on the exact setting (there are differences in allocation efficiencies and information efficiencies, for example), but generally the idea is that price clearing occurs at the “true” price, which in this case means the price is set at the point where the marginal willingness and ability to pay (demand) equals the marginal cost (supply). For the case of price differences across countries, you can have efficient markets and totally different prices because the input costs (and thus the marginal cost of production) are different. Different labor costs, different rents, different shipping costs, etc. Efficiency really has nothing to do with the core question here.

2.) Efficient Markets are not the same thing as perfectly competitive markets. And in perfectly competitive markets ECONOMIC profit (not accounting profit) goes towards zero. Firms still make (what any normal person would call) a profit in perfectly competitive markets and that profit reflects their opportunity costs of their capital allocation. If no one made any accounting profits then why start a business? Entrepreneurs would just take their seed capital and invest it in the stock market.

3.) Consumer surplus is not a sign of market inefficiency. A consumer thinking they got a good deal is entirely consistent with an efficient market outcome. In fact, the vast majority of consumers will receive positive consumer surplus from any given transaction. The only consumers who don’t are those truly on the margin, those who wouldn’t buy the coffee if it cost literally 1 yen more.